help with leadershp assgn due in 48 hours

Article

Feminist Criminology 2022, Vol. 17(5) 619–640 © The Author(s) 2022 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/15570851211066107 journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx

The Benefits and Supervisory Styles of Women Police Leaders

Blake Beaton1, Natalie Todak2, and John A. Shjarback3

Abstract While research has identified four main police supervisory styles, it is unclear whether the framework accurately represents the supervisory styles of women. We explored the benefits of promoting women in policing and examined their supervisory styles, drawing on interviews with 38 ranking women. Participants attributed three benefits to promoting women – diversity, people-orientation, and conscientiousness. All 34 who described their supervisory style fell into one of the four previously identified cate- gories. Most common was innovative (50%), then supportive (32%), traditional (12%), and active (6%). We link findings to calls for gender diversity up the ranks of law enforcement.

Keywords policing, women, leadership, supervision, interviews

The Benefits and Supervisory Styles ofWomen Police Leaders

Quality leadership and first-line supervision are essential for well-functioning police departments (e.g., Muir, 1977; Tyler, 2011; Van Maanen, 1983; Wilson, 1968). Police leaders set administrative policies and organizational priorities, which then set the

1Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA 2University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA 3Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author: Natalie Todak, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1201 University Boulevard, Birmingham, AL 35233, USA. Email: [email protected]

overarching tone and culture of departments. Meanwhile, supervisors perform crucial intermediary roles between upper management and line-level officers (Walker & Katz, 2013) where they are directly responsible for monitoring behavior, addressing ac- countability and discipline, and reinforcing management’s desired practices. Police leaders and supervisors, collectively, perform a vital role in placing a check on the high degree of discretion that front-line staff possess (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993;Walker, 1993), which can be problematic given the high stakes of police work where officers can deprive people of their liberty and take life (Bittner, 1970).

Additionally, a burgeoning body of research is finding how important police leaders and supervisors are in fostering organizational justice—defined as subordinates’ evaluations of fairness in processes, outcomes, and treatment by supervisors and leaders (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001)—throughout their respective agencies. Front-line police officers’ perceptions of organizational justice have been found to influence commitment to their agencies, job satisfaction, productivity, self-legitimacy, engagement in rule violations, and misconduct (see Wolfe & Lawson, 2020 for an overview). Therefore, examining how police leaders and supervisors view and perform their roles is an empirical priority that has implications for organizational efficiency and impact.

Yet, not all leaders and supervisors are created equally. Instead, there is variation across supervisory styles (Engel, 2001; Maskaly & Jennings, 2016), which likely impacts the behavior of the front-line officers under their command (Engel, 2000, 2002). However, prior research on police supervisory styles has been limited by samples that are overwhelmingly comprised of men. Certainly, this is not surprising because the vast majority of those occupying positions of power in police organizations are men (Hyland & Davis, 2019; Shjarback & Todak, 2019). It is nevertheless possible that supervisory styles vary by gender, although relatively few studies have examined these potential differences.

If men and women possess different styles and qualities, then the lack of gender diversity in existing research would limit our understanding of police leadership and supervision overall and, ultimately, how gender differences in those positions may differentially affect frontline policing. For example, given the role of organizational justice for shaping police officer behaviors, it is possible that women leaders/ supervisors—if they do possess more personality traits and exhibit behavior con- ductive to fostering organizationally just perceptions—may serve as a protective factor against harmful departmental/sub-organizational culture (Crank, 2004). Further, with tangible evidence of the differences between men and women in positions of power, as well as evidence of the possible benefits associated with their increased representation in these roles (i.e., a business case), police agencies may see greater value in gender diversification and place a greater priority on promoting and retaining more women leaders.

The current study addresses the exclusion of women in the research on police supervisory styles by 1) exploring the traits and skills of a sample of women leaders and supervisors and 2) examining their supervisory styles, drawing on 39 semi-structured

620 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

phone interviews. In addition to increasing the representativeness of this body of literature to an understudied population, our study offers important implications for ongoing conversations surrounding the persistent underrepresentation of women in policing, the potential benefits of increased gender diversity for police officers, agencies, and communities, and for the specific impact of promoting more women in U.S. law enforcement.

Police Supervisory Styles

Police leaders and supervisors must use a wide range of behaviors and strategies to influence their subordinates (Johnson, 2006), while tackling difficult situations to gain their support. As such, several empirical efforts have been undertaken to characterize the most common police supervisory styles that emerge within this context. Bass (1985) identified three styles: transformational, transactional, and management-by-exception. Transformational leaders value charisma, motivation, consideration, and intellectual stimulation. Compared to others, they are not as concerned with punishing bad be- haviors. Instead, they seek to raise the mindfulness of their followers to the values of peace and equality. Transactional leaders tend to view social interactions as economic exchanges and ensure workers are aware of the rewards to be gained through effort. They often engage in a negotiation process where if their workers are meeting sat- isfactory levels of work and effort, then they will receive their material and non- material needs. This simplistic type of leadership is both distant and engaging for leaders as they do not readily socialize with their workers but are constantly aware of what their subordinates are asking for. Last, management-by-exception leaders set strict guidelines for their subordinates and expect high work output and effort. They will only intervene if a worker is not doing their tasks correctly, as they are quick to enact punishment but are unwilling to reward or praise good work. It is important to note, however, that Bass’ work was purely theoretical and he built the model by drawing on political scientists, psychohistorians, and the motivational and leadership literatures.

Robin Engel built on Bass (1985) by providing empirical data and quantitative methods. Engel (2001) observed the styles of leadership exhibited by police sergeants and lieutenants through close-ended survey questionnaires for the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN) study in 1996–1997. The questionnaires inquired about factors related to: power, decision making, activity level, relations orientation (friends), re- lations orientation (protect), task orientation, inspirational motivation, expect com- munity relations, expect aggressive enforcement, and views of subordinates. Using the officers’ ordinal responses to these questions, Engel employed a factor analysis to quantitatively identify the underlying latent styles of supervision. Results uncovered four distinctive supervisory styles: traditional, innovative, supportive, or active. Traditional leaders typically exercise complete control over subordinates. They are more likely to take over situations when subordinates encounter problems and are unlikely to reward good behavior but quick to punish to keep subordinates in line.

Beaton et al. 621

Traditional leaders expect subordinates to operate aggressively and according to rules they have laid out. In addition, they do not often appreciate community involvement in decision making as they believe the rules they have established should be carried out without question. Last, traditional leaders expect visible results from their workers, such as reports of their daily or monthly accomplishments, as they are highly task oriented.

Engel’s (2001) innovative style is performance and outcome focused. These leaders seek to develop workers’ problem-solving abilities through mentorship and seek feedback from their workers that could create new and more effective policies. They are more receptive of feedback and focused on maintaining good relationships with subordinates and community members. These leaders are unlikely to set strict ex- pectations for work output. Finally, innovative leaders are cognizant that their decisions could influence future innovations. Thus, they take their positions very seriously. Although similar to innovative leadership as both styles are relations oriented, sup- portive leaders are not necessarily focused on being friends with subordinates, but they are caring, nurturing, and protecting. Supportive leaders focus on the safety and well- being of subordinates. They are highly motivating and more likely than other leaders to reward good behavior. Supportive leaders try to protect their workers from upper management, often taking the blame for negative feedback. Like innovative leaders, supportive leaders also tend to emphasize the development of their subordinates’ skills yet accomplish this by advocating instead of mentoring. Ultimately, supportive leaders try to create a work environment that their subordinates feel comfortable performing in.

Engel’s (2001) active leaders operate as though they were one of their subordinates. They are often out on the streets with their officers, similar to traditional leaders. They are also similar to traditional leaders regarding their expectations of high work output. However, active leaders maintain a positive view of their workers as independent and responsible actors. They expect workers to handle difficult situations on their own. Active supervisors lead by example, demonstrating how situations should be handled while gaining or maintaining the respect of subordinates by exhibiting work ethic and solidarity.

Engel (2001) found the officers surveyed in the POPN study were evenly spread across the four styles, though they used an innovative supervisory style most often (27%), followed by a traditional style (26%), and then supportive or active styles (23%, respectively). Women, however, only comprised 12 out of the 81 sergeants and lieutenants, and 50% were classified as “traditional,” 25% were “active,” 17% were “supportive,” and 8% were “innovative.” In later studies, she found supervisory style was significantly related to both the manner in which subordinate officers used their time (Engel, 2002) and exercised their coercive authority (Engel, 2000). Using more recent data from the National Police Research Platform, Maskaly and Jennings (2016) sought to replicate Engel’s (2001) supervisory styles with a larger sample of 369 police supervisors. Despite not having all of the same items used by Engel (2001), these authors were able to replicate three of the four supervisory styles using an exploratory factor analysis. Their findings showed no evidence of an “active” style, women in their

622 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

sample were more likely to be categorized as “innovative,” and women were less likely to be categorized as “traditional” leaders compared to men.

Finally, based on qualitative interviews with 161 police chiefs in the state of Texas, Sarver and Miller (2014) identified three types of leadership: transformational, transactional, and passive. As they described, transformational leaders are open to change, proactive, and work to mentor and assist subordinates in achieving self- betterment. This style is comparable to Engel’s (2001) innovative style. Sarver and Miller’s (2014) transactional leaders, on the other hand, set clear expectations and expect them to be followed without questions. Transactional leaders at their extreme can exhibit authoritative personalities by setting strict guidelines with the threat of severe punishment for disobedience. While they are similar to Engel’s (2001) tradi- tional leaders, Sarver and Miller’s (2014) transactional leaders may reward good behavior and hard work while Engel’s traditional leaders do not. Last, the passive leadership style involves taking an avoidant stance on supervision. Passive leaders do not wish to take action in decision making and generally avoid conflict. Sarver and Miller’s (2014) passive leadership style is unlike any of Engel’s (2001) proposed styles of leadership.

Consistent with most policing research, empirical knowledge of police supervision and leadership styles is skewed towards men. Thus, while the chronic underrepre- sentation of women up the ranks is apparent, there is limited empirical knowledge regarding the nature and impact of the women currently serving in these roles. It is also evident that the research on police supervisory styles is, more generally, in its infancy. Considering the impact of supervisory style on frontline police behaviors (Engel, 2000, 2002), it is crucial that researchers continue to investigate this area of research. We do so by taking a closer look at the relevancy of existing frameworks for women police supervisors and leaders.

Women in Policing and Leadership

While women have become far more accepted in policing in the past few decades (Archbold & Schulz, 2012), their numbers have stayed stagnant at around 11–12% of sworn law enforcement officers (Cordner & Cordner, 2011). Though the idea of women serving as police officers was met with hostility and disapproval in the past (Martin, 1980), more recent research demonstrates stronger support and a greater acceptance of women in policing by male police officers as well as citizens (Austin & Hummer, 2000; Leger, 1997; Rabe-Hemp, 2008). This acceptance is likely due to evidence that in- dicates women are just as effective at their job while also showing lower levels of aggression and use of force incidents compared to their male counterparts (Archbold & Schulz, 2012; Lonsway, 2000).

Women represent only 2–7% of supervisors and leaders in U.S. law enforcement, and they become increasingly more underrepresented moving up the chain of command (Hyland & Davis, 2019). While some research has investigated the reasons for the glass ceiling, few have examined the experiences of women who defied the odds by attaining

Beaton et al. 623

positions in supervision and leadership. Early research predicted women would struggle to attain ranking positions given internal barriers such as supervisory biases and tokenism, and external barriers including childcare and work-family conflict (Martin, 1989; Sulton & Townsey, 1981). Schulz (2003) offered the first exploratory snapshot of the first women in the United States to become police chief. She found these women led a variety of agencies by both size and type. One-third led the agencies where they began their careers, while two-thirds made career moves to earn their positions; a handful moved as many as four or five times. Additionally, 75% had either a bachelor’s or a master’s degree, underscoring the high level of education in the sample. Finally, the majority were white and single. While emphasizing the challenges of capturing in- formation about police chiefs given high turnover in the position, Schulz (2003) called on researchers to continue work in this area.

In an interview-based study with men and women police leaders in Sweden, Haake (2018) found women endorsed the need for women in leadership positions more strongly than men. When asked why they thought women were underrepresented, women were critical of gender segregation in the assignments in their departments, believing women received lower status assignments that prevented them from ad- vancing. Nearly all women participants said men were more respected and viewed as more competent leaders. They also felt women had to be “cleverer, more skilled, tougher and more distinctive than men to be accepted as leaders” (pg. 247). Meanwhile, men explained the lack of women in leadership by denouncing their abilities, namely their “drive.” Haake (2018) also asked participants to offer ideas for increasing the number of women leaders and officers. Whereas women suggested changing orga- nizational culture, educating men about gender inequality and prejudice, and assigning women to the coveted leadership assignments, men suggested training to improve women’s leadership skills. Men, in effect, blamed women for their inability to earn leadership positions, while women believed the culture prevented them from promoting.

Much of the current research in this area has been undertaken by Marisa Silvestri, based on interviews with 30 women police leaders in England and Wales (Silvestri, 2013). According to Silvestri (2006), women leaders acknowledge and utilize time as a resource when planning their progression up the ranks. Given that police culture tends to regard women as potential risks until proven otherwise, participants explained that time allows them to establish organizational commitment and credibility to male peers. At the same time, women leaders believed they also have to be more aggressive, ambitious, and competitive than men to promote (Silvestri, 2007).

These findings suggest women may be adopting different approaches to leadership (but see Osterling & Hines, 2006). Indeed, there is preliminary evidence that gender is related to police supervisory styles. Engel (2001) found women were more likely to be traditional and less likely to be innovative than men. Maskaly and Jennings (2016) found that women showed more innovative leadership style traits and less traditional leadership style traits compared to the men, with no significant differences between men and women on the supportive style. Sarver and Miller’s (2014) sample of men

624 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

supervisors were more likely to be transactional (i.e., traditional) compared to women in the sample, while the women were more transformational (i.e., innovative). Aside from gender, both Maskaly and Jennings (2016) and Engel (2001) found no other individual level differences. Given the mixed, limited, and in some cases dated quantitative evidence pertaining to gender differences in police leadership styles, a qualitative and exploratory examination into the topic is warranted.

Methods

The current study addresses the lack of research examining women police supervisors and leaders in the United States. We specifically 1) explore the self-described traits and skills that women bring to supervisory and leadership positions, and 2) examine whether previously identified supervisory styles emerge in our qualitative study of women. Regarding the latter, it is important to note that we are not attempting to replicate the quantitative analyses conducted in previous research (Engel, 2001; Maskaly & Jennings, 2016). Rather, we are using these styles—traditional, innovative, supportive, and active—as an evaluative tool and overarching framework to guide us in our qualitative analysis. Engel’s four-part categorization provides, in our opinion, the most tangible existing framework to work with since it presents the specific items used, which we employed as our coding criteria (see Appendix A).

Sampling and Recruitment

Our data come from a larger study investigating the career trajectories of women in law enforcement, their experiences seeking promotions, and their underrepresentation as supervisors and leaders. Data collection for the larger study included 55 semi-structured phone interviews with women in U.S. law enforcement. Given that the focus of this paper was to provide an exploratory understanding of the supervisory and leadership styles used by women, we draw only on the 39 interviews with participants who promoted beyond the entry level rank in their departments. Our focus is therefore on women who have served in supervisory (e.g., sergeant, lieutenant) and/or leadership roles (e.g., captain, major, deputy or assistant chief/sheriff, chief/sheriff). This includes women currently serving in leadership positions, those who were promoted and then demoted or reassigned, and those who left or retired from policing.

Recruitment was carried out in four ways following a snowball sampling technique. Personal police contacts were first explored, from whom we asked for referrals. IRB- approved recruitment emails were sent out by the American Society of Evidence-Based Policing (ASEBP), the National Institute of Justice’s Law Enforcement Advancing Data and Science (LEADS) Program, the National Association of Women Law En- forcement Executives (NAWLEE), and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) on our behalf, and members were asked to forward recruitment announcements to their respective agencies. Social media blurbs were

Beaton et al. 625

posted on Twitter. Finally, a statement was included at the end of the online survey requesting participants to reach out if they were interested in doing an interview.

The sample included three corporals, eight sergeants, eight lieutenants, six captains, one major, one deputy chief, six assistant chiefs, and six chiefs of police (N = 39). Participant age ranged from 32 to 58 years with an average of 46. The self-reported race/ ethnicity of each participant was White (N =30), Black (N = 4), Hispanic (N = 2), Asian (N = 2), and Mixed (N = 1). Most participants worked in municipal agencies (N = 30), followed by Sheriff’s offices (N = 4), state agencies (N =3), and university departments (N = 2). Department size ranged widely, with the smallest being six sworn and the largest being more than 36,000 sworn. The breakdown of department size was: 1–99 (N = 10), 100–499 (N = 10), 500–999 (N = 8), 1000–4999 (N = 8), and 5,000+ (N = 3). Finally, our sample came from 17 states and every U.S. region: Midwest (N = 10), South (N = 10), West (N = 11), Southwest (N = 5), Mid-Atlantic (N = 2), and New England (N = 1).

Data Collection

Data collection occurred during Fall 2019 and Spring 2020. Phone interviews were scheduled via email and all prospective participants were sent an IRB-approved consent form. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and checked for accuracy. The semi-structured interviews covered each person’s career, interest in promotion, ex- periences with the promotional process, experiences and competencies serving in leadership roles, and perceptions of women in police leadership (i.e., their impact, competencies, and reasons for underrepresentation).

Analysis

Analysis proceeded in two parts. Given current interest in gender diversity in police leadership and the lack of research in this area, our first goal was to identify any benefits participants attributed to promoting women in policing. Transcripts were read and coded for traits or skills attributed to women police leaders, with attention paid to responses to two questions: 1) “Do you think there are any added benefits to having women in police leadership?” and 2) “Do you think women police leaders do their jobs differently than men?” Reported traits and skills were grouped together based on similarities, resulting in three organizational categories containing seven subthemes.

Our second goal was to code each participant’s self-reported supervisory style and compare our distribution to Engel’s (2001) original findings. Two coders independently read and then, if possible, categorized each participant’s response to the question “Can you describe your own leadership style?” into one of Engel’s four styles (see Appendix A for criteria). Responses that fell in more than one category were coded according to the most prominent style. There was an initial agreement rate of 87% between coders. In the five cases of disagreement, participants mentioned themes from two or more styles and disagreement concerned which was most prominent. A third coder inde- pendently coded these five and served as the tie breaking vote.

626 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

Traits and Skills of Women Police Leaders

Participants described three categories of benefits they believed women police su- pervisors and leaders offered in comparison to men. These were diversity, a people- orientation, and conscientiousness. Within these three broad categories, there were seven emergent subthemes. Figure 1 provides descriptions and reports the number of participants who endorsed each theme.

Diversity

Perspective. 19 participants (50%) said women leaders offer different perspectives than men, which they believe resulted in better overall problem solving for the department. Felicity (Assistant Chief) said “I think that the girls and the guys have two different brains; not that one is right, and one is wrong, but they are different. I think that we need

Figure 1. Summary of themes.

Beaton et al. 627

that diversity.” Hattie (Assistant Sheriff) added, “We bring a different perspective. I think the diversity of ideas is as important as, you know, the gender differences. So, I think it’s healthy.” Participants also spoke to the benefits of having a woman leader involved when decisions were made about gendered problems and cases:

I think that we would have probably better approaches to things like domestic violence and sexual assault. You know, how we deal with prostitution and drug dealing might look a little bit differently if there were more women in leadership positions in policing. (Blair, Major)

Representation. Six participants (16%) thought the simple presence of women in leadership and supervision offered the passive benefit of increased representation. In this view, women leaders serve as role models for prospective officers, new recruits, and line-level officers, who observe a woman serving in a high-ranking role and gain inspiration from them and the knowledge that they can also promote and be successful. Casey (Captain) described this as follows:

It does make a difference for those that are coming into the career, and those that are looking towards upper management. If they see people that look like them, or that they can relate to in different ways, in their perspective they feel more comfortable and confident than if they go somewhere where they don’t feel comfortable and confident with what they see as their upper-level management, or as their leaders, or in what they are falling into.

Debby (Assistant Chief) echoed this point

I do think that it is really good for females to see women as supervisors and also in command. We’ve had three female police officers from [other states] that, one of the main reasons why they sought out [our department] was because they saw we have a female chief now and before…So they saw that female leadership and really wanted to work for our department because of that. And I think you can’t undersell the mentor quality of it. I think it’s really important.

The presence of women in leadership was important to many of our participants. Given their underrepresentation in the field, it was believed that women in lower ranks may not believe they can achieve a higher rank or may worry about the negative consequences of being a trailblazer in a male dominated field. As some participants noted, this point may be especially true for minority women in law enforcement, who hold a dual status as both a racial and gender minority (Todak & Brown, 2019).

People-Orientation

Democracy. 14 participants (37%) believed women are generally better communicators and listeners than men. They said in leadership roles, women engage in more frank

628 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

conversations with their subordinates and seek out and incorporate worker input into team and department decision making. For example, Alice (Lieutenant) said:

I think we’re more sensitive and probably [are] more open-minded for conversations, change, and criticism, I would like to think. I look at my females on my squad, and how I interact with them, and how the conversations roll, and how I can prepare for those crucial moments, those harder conversations. As opposed to when I am talking with one of my guys.

Similarly, Tina (Assistant Chief) said,

Everybody is different but I do think most women, for me, maybe we listen differently. I think we are better at being team players, in the sense of wanting to hear what people say so we can come up with better solutions and problem solve.

The theme of women supervisors being “team players” was frequently contrasted with leaders who dictate without soliciting feedback (i.e., traditional leaders; Engel, 2001).

Compassion. Nine participants (24%) said women are better at responding to their workers’ personal problems, treat workers with more care, and respect their need to have work-life balance. In her discussion of how women police leaders respond to officer mistakes, Rose (Lieutenant) said:

There is more empathy and being open minded to mistakes. I mean ‘cause everyone is human. I think that some men want to jump to discipline and just not really consider why the poor decisions were made. But it’s just the different thought process.

As Rose suggests, being open-minded about mistakes could result in improvements down the road if a leader addresses the root of the original problem. Chloe (Sergeant) also underscored the importance of considering the personal lives and problems of officers:

We do have more empathy and more compassion than men. So, when it’s not hindering us and stopping us or holding us back, we do need to have compassion for an employee who’s going through a very hard time.

Likewise, Amelia (Sergeant) explained that, because she was well known as a compassionate supervisor, her office was a common meeting spot for workers to convene, talk about their problems, and seek guidance:

They would feel comfortable about going to me because I gave good advice and I wouldn’t judge them for anything that they told me, and that I wouldn’t spread their shit around the

Beaton et al. 629

department. Like they knew that I was trustworthy. So, I think that you get that kind of female aspect of easy to talk to a little easier and approachable.

Although these women are responsible for supervising workers and ensuring they are completing all their necessary tasks, they also believed a good leader considers the personal needs of employees and they felt women leaders were more likely to make these considerations.

Rewards and Praise. Four participants (11%) said women leaders are more likely to notice and acknowledge workers’ strengths and commend hard work. Although re- warding hard work is not common practice in police work (Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993), a few participants said it was effective for motivating workers and something that male leaders often overlooked. While discussing the importance of recognition, Madison (Lieutenant) stated:

I think as women we get that, where you look at the person’s strengths and you try to utilize their strengths and not to be less of an officer or as efficient because they don’t have the same strengths as you. And I’ve noticed in my career that that is what men tend to do. They don’t recognize people for their strengths and put them in the positions they should be in based off their strengths.

Blair (Major) added that “more women in leadership would make more decisions around what kinds of activities should be rewarded and prioritized” suggesting women leaders are clearer about their expectations and deliberately reward those who achieve them. Likewise, Willow (Chief) believed she led differently than others in her de- partment when she was a Captain, because she let workers know when they were doing a good job:

I got them to work more for me and produce more because I treated them differently than what they were accustomed to. They weren’t used to be treated as adults or being told that they were appreciated. So, my productivity went up and I had the same amount of officers. So, I couldn’t really control what was going out on the streets but I could control the interactions with my employees and I got a lot more out of them.

Thus, by rewarding hard work, Willow believes she was able to motivate her officers to work even harder.

Conscientiousness

Absence of Ego. Three participants (8%) said “male ego” was an impediment to good supervision. They felt that men tend to lead with their pride and were unlikely to correct a past mistake or compromise on their decisions. Debby (Assistant Chief) said, “I do sometimes think that women are a little bit more balanced with being able to be open

630 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

and receive feedback and apply that. Perhaps some of the male ego gets into the way.” Male ego was also discussed by Tina in reference to a Chief she worked with in her position as Assistant Chief. She said that her awareness of “male ego” helped her to interact more effectively with her boss.

Sometimes the male ego, I often would see once they make a decision you know, that’s the decision and that’s what we are going to do…I learned to throwmy opinion on people who are very dominant…I would say “well [Chief] have you considered how that might affect A, B, C, or D if that is what we are going to do?”And then I would share an example and he would go “well I hadn’t thought about that.”

Though having a “big ego” is certainly not an exclusively male trait, these three women felt having more women in police leadership may result in an environment more open to change and improvement.

Methodical Decision Making. Finally, three (8%) participants felt women leaders were more methodical and patient than men, with women putting more thought into their decisions before choosing a course of action. These participants thought that men try to solve problems more quickly, compared to women who take time to think them out. Taylor (Chief) said:

I think that we think of different ways, different directions that things can go. Men are very much about “I want to fix it and I want to fix it now.”And I think women think things out a little bit more. And I think about what has got to be addressed immediately, but I think sometimes we try and do what is best for not only the department but the town as well. And I’m not saying that guys don’t do that, but I think we slow down a little bit and run through the possibilities more

Likewise, Jennifer (Sergeant) said

I think women are thinkers and guys are reactors. Guys want to fix things. Women want to fix things too, but we think about it, we are more methodical. And I think that helps when you can slow it down, let’s take a look at this and look at the big picture.

Policewomen’s Supervisory Styles

Our second goal assessed how well our women-only sample of police supervisors and leaders compared to Engel’s (2001) framework of supervisory styles. Thirty-four of 39 participants (87%) described their leadership styles with enough detail to code. The remaining five offered either no response (3) or insufficient detail to code (2)— one participant just said she was “relaxed,” which is more consistent with Sarver and Miller’s (2014) passive style, while the other opted out of audio recording and the notes were insufficient. The remaining 34 fit into one of Engel’s (2001) four styles.

Beaton et al. 631

The most common style in our sample was innovative (N = 17; 50%). Innovative leaders adapt to the needs of their employees, with a focus on building and mentoring them to be optimally effective for the agency and community. For example,

I don’t think I have one leadership style. I think that it has to change depending on the people you deal with. I think individually your leadership style has to be different for each person you lead. I think it is also situational because you know, when we are in a situation where we may have an active shooter, obviously there is no time to gather the group and talk about what is our plan. (Madison, Lieutenant)

Note that one feature of being an innovative leader may be adopting a traditional style in certain situations that call for them to be authoritative. Because innovative leaders are outcome focused, they adapt their techniques according to both the cir- cumstances of the decision and the specific employee, all focused on arriving at the best possible outcome. In the same way, when asked about her leadership style, Quinn (Assistant Chief) described it as follows:

I guess I would say it’s situational. I realize that a lot of people are in different places in their careers. Some people, they are really confident and self-initiating, and you don’t really have to do much other than check in with them, and other people are new or need help or attention.

In addition to supervising subordinates differently, innovative leaders are also receptive to feedback and favor worker participation in decision making as well as team building for the overall betterment of the department. Nikki (Captain) emphasized these qualities in her own leadership style:

My leadership style…I would call it participatory, whereas before I make a decision, I will hear my sergeant and lieutenants on what they think and ask them their opinion and what would they do, and then I make my decision. But I like to hear all aspects ‘cause it surprises you, the ideas my sergeant and lieutenants have that I never thought of.

Gerry (Deputy Chief) echoed this point, “I respect everybody’s opinions and I like to get people’s opinions. If I have to make decisions, then I like to weigh as much as I can. So, a collaborative and teamwork approach.”

Eleven of the 34 responding participants (32%) described themselves as supportive supervisors or leaders. The priority of supportive leaders is officer wellness and protecting them from negative influences so they can focus on work. For example, Blair, a Major, said:

It’s real critical to me to take care of people and make sure that their needs are being met so they can focus on their job. And I would say that that’s the best example of who I am and who I want to be as a leader. I was taught very early on in life and my time in the military

632 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

that the role of leader is to take care of people so that people can take care of the job. So, they will as long as they feel supported doing it.

Penelope, a Lieutenant, Similarly Explained the Values of Being a Supportive Leader

I think that’s one of the biggest things that you do as a leader is you support the people that are under you and—how can I make their life better? And in the end, the bigger picture—how can we make this department better? And so, making sure that the people below me are empowered and they have the knowledge that they need and the equipment that they need and they feel supported is part of the leadership style that I believe in.

For many of the supportive leaders, providing space for workers to talk about their personal issues was an essential component of promoting employee wellness. Tina, an Assistant Chief, said:

Some would be like “can I come and sit on the couch? I need to talk to somebody.” And I would be like “Absolutely. Come on in. What’s going on?” And some of them had really big issues. They would be dealing with divorce or their child was sick or their parent was dying.

Only four (12%) of our participants were coded as traditional leaders. These women laid out strict standards and clear rules for their subordinates. Debby (Assistant Chief) embodied a traditional leader when she said “you basically do what I say. It’s not a request.” Likewise, Louise (Sergeant) said “I’m very much a policy and procedure person… if the policies and procedures that are the highest liabilities for our department are violated, then I am the letter of the law when it comes to those.” She continued, “I’m not a micro-manager, but if you need me to micro-manage you, then you probably won’t be on my team much longer.”

Traditional leaders also pay minimal attention to their workers’ ideas and do not often solicit their input. Corinne was a Lieutenant who described herself as “an au- thoritative person.” She relayed that she tried to be democratic, but most often went with her own gut when making decisions: “I feel very confident in my decisions and judgement, so I tend to try to push it, push it in a hard way.”

Finally, only 2 (6%) women in our sample described their leadership style as active. Active leaders work in the field at every chance and their primary method of leadership is by example. Yvonne (Assistant Chief) said, “I’m very much a boots-on- the-ground approach, you know? You gotta be out there with the troops to show them by example and I think they truly appreciate that.” In this quote, Yvonne also indicates that active leaders wish to maintain high favorability among their subordinates. This is often accomplished by showing they are not out of touch with patrol work even though

Beaton et al. 633

they are “out of the game” serving in their administrative role. For example, Willow (Chief) said,

I was the first person on the scene because I always wanted them to realize that I wasn’t asking them to do anything that I didn’t do myself. And that’s usually complaints about cops, like oh they don’t knowwhat it’s like out here, they haven’t been out in the field, they can never say that about me. So, a lot of the time when people were asked about well how is she as a cop, for the most part you would get, well she’s a cop’s cop.

Thus, our research echoes findings from Maskaly and Jennings (2016) that Engel’s (2001) active leadership style does not appear to be prevalent today in policing.

Discussion

The stagnant growth of gender diversity in U.S. law enforcement has been widely noted (e.g., Cordner & Cordner, 2011). The underrepresentation of women is most evident in upper ranking positions where they average only 7% of first-line supervisors, 7% of mid-level managers, and 2.7% of chief executives (Shjarback & Todak, 2019). One explanation for this stagnation is the lack of evidence supporting the need and impact of women in policing. That is, policing lacks a persuasive case for why it should expend more resources to hire and promote more women. The current study sought to add to the evidence surrounding the benefits of ranking women in policing through in-depth interviews with women supervisors and leaders from a diverse sample of agencies from all regions of the United States. We first examined whether participants attributed any benefits to promoting women in policing. We then identified the self-reported su- pervisory style of each participant and compared these to Engel’s (2000, 2001) research on police supervision. Given that prior research found significant agency-level dif- ferences in supervisory styles (Engel, 2001; Maskaly & Jennings, 2016), our use of a national sample offers a broader understanding of the distribution of supervisory styles in U.S. policing and the generalizability of existing research.

It is evident from our findings that participants strongly endorsed the benefits of gender diversity in police leadership. As a group, they described seven traits and skills that women offer in these positions, with some qualities being raised by as many as one half (perspective), one-third (democracy), and one quarter (compassion) of the sample. While numerous participants qualified that gender is not a definitive predictor of these traits, most described women as being generally better than men at behaviors such as listening and communicating, soliciting and responding to feedback, and having empathy for the personal needs and work-life balance of employees.

Note these behaviors are closely connected to the concept of organizational justice, which links front-line officers’ perceptions of supervisory fairness to a number of positive outcomes including less engagement in rule breaking and higher productivity (see Wolfe & Lawson, 2020 for an overview). In fact, a few of the traits/skills as well as several components of both innovative and supportive supervisory styles have ties to the different

634 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

dimensions of organizational justice. For example, democracy—particularly being better communicators and listeners, engaging in more frank conversations with subordinates and seeking out worker input into team/department decision making—compassion, rewards, and praise (e.g., setting clearer expectations), the absence of ego, andmethodical decision making, are all relevant to fostering distributive, procedural, and interaction justice among subordinates (see Wolfe & Lawson, 2020).

Moreover, these traits are not just advantageous to women officers—they benefit all officers under a supervisor’s command. They can also benefit the police de- partment as a whole and the served community if they improve the work environment, generate more innovative ideas, better decision making, and improve officer per- formance, although more research is needed in this regard. A second benefit for participants was that women bring different skills and ideas to the table, underscoring the importance of diversity in upper ranking positions where individuals have the power to influence policy and make change. Given the nationwide focus on issues in policing in recent years, and prevalent calls for police reform particularly among people of color, the need for innovative ideas for resolving these problems could not be more apparent.

Engel (2001) found that officers in the POPN study in 1996–1997 used an inno- vative supervisory style most often (27%), followed by a traditional style (26%), and then supportive or active styles (23%, respectively). These numbers showed a near even spread across the four styles in the total sample. However, when analyzing by gender, she found women (N = 12; 15%) were more likely to use a traditional style (50%) compared to men (22%). She argued “female supervisors, perhaps seeking to gain legitimacy in their supervisory roles, may be more likely to use rules and regulations as means to control their officers” (pg. 351), while men enjoy respect on the basis of mutual identification or the legitimacy of their rank. Using a similar methodology, Maskaly and Jennings (2016) replicated three of Engel’s four supervisory styles, with the exception of active supervision. Their study also contrasted with Engel’s findings related to gender, with women being most likely to use the innovative style of leadership and men more often using a traditional style.

Our study found 82% of women described either an “innovative” or “supportive” supervisory role, which stands in contrast to Engel (2001) where only 25% of women were categorized by the same two styles. Our sample more closely aligns with Maskaly and Jennings’ (2016) in that the most common style of leadership among women was “innovative.” Perhaps the divergent findings between this study and Engel (2001) are related to the passage of time. It is likely that gender dynamics in police departments have changed since the 1990s, with women being more prevalent and thus more normalized in positions of supervision and leadership (e.g., Rabe-Hemp, 2018). As a result, women may no longer feel as strong of a need to demand respect from subordinates through traditional methods of supervision. Women officers may also have greater access to leadership training programs and other opportunities to learn about the most effective methods of leadership for gaining respect and efficiency from employees.

Beaton et al. 635

Much like Maskaly and Jennings (2016), we found that very few of the women in our sample reported using an active style. While purely speculative, perhaps the lack of those embodying an “active” supervisory style is related to the increased administrative and monitoring tasks in recent years compared to what the role entailed in the 1990s. Supervisors might be tasked with reviewing more paperwork (e.g., use of force reports) or forms written by front-line officers in an area where there is, arguably, more ac- countability. Other tasks, such as logging into the early intervention system each shift (Walker, 2010), may occupy more of their time—preventing them from being out on the road and involved with their officers.

The main limitation of our study concerns the use of self-report. Our examination of the potential benefits of women in ranking positions is based on the perceptions of women holding these roles. They are not based on a triangulation of sources, such as evaluations from supervisors or subordinates, from citizens, or from objective measures of behavior. A triangulated approach drawing on multiple sources of data would be ideal. Nevertheless, this study offers a first time, exploratory look at the potential impact of women in police supervision and leadership—a topic not yet addressed in the literature. Likewise, our assignments of each participant’s supervisory style are based on self-report. It is possible these descriptions were influenced by the individual’s ideas of what makes an effective leader or what they have been taught in leadership trainings, rather than an accurate self-reflection. Nevertheless, each person’s perception of what makes an effective leader is likely related to their goals when serving in these positions. At the same time, supervisors are likely to receive ample feedback from their superiors and possibly from subordinates pertaining to their style and effectiveness as a leader. Moreover, our findings concur with the four supervisory styles observed in prior studies (most closely with Maskaly & Jennings, 2016).

In conclusion, we find that women supervisors and leaders do fall within Engel’s (2001) supervisory style framework, and most commonly embody the supportive and innovative styles. More broadly, our findings suggest that increased gender diversity in police supervision and leadership can offer tangible benefits for police officers, agencies, and communities, though further research is this area is greatly needed.

Appendix A

Supervisory Style Coding Criteria (from Engel, 2001)

Traditional · Want complete control over subordinates · Establish clear rules and expectations · Take over situations when subordinates encounter problems · Expect visible results and aggressive tactics from workers · Unlikely to reward good behavior but quick to punish

636 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

Innovative · Focus on mentorship and developing workers’ problem-solving abilities · Seek feedback and input from workers · Value relations with their subordinates and community members · Aware that decisions could influence future innovations and thus take their

position seriously

Supportive · Protect worker safety and well-being, especially from upper management · Take blame for negative feedback · Motivate and develop workers by advocating, rather than mentoring · Reward and praise good behavior · Caring, nurturing, and protecting, rather than friendly with workers

Active · Work in the field and lead by example · Expect high work output · Expect workers to be able to handle difficult situations on their own and solve

their own problems.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Natalie Todak  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7379-0563

References

Archbold, C. A., & Schulz, D. M. (2012). Research on women in policing: A look at the past, present and future. Sociology Compass, 6(9), 694–706. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751- 9020.2012.00501.x

Austin, T. L., & Hummer, D. (2000). What do college students think of policewomen? An attitudinal assessment of future law enforcement personnel. Women & Criminal Justice, 10(4), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1300/j012v10n04_01

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Beaton et al. 637

Bittner, E. (1970). The functions of the police in modern society. National Institute of Mental Health.

Sarver, M. B., &Miller, H. (2014). Police chief leadership: Styles and effectiveness. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37(1), 126–143. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/pijpsm-03-2013-0028

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278–321. https://doi.org/ 10.1006/obhd.2001.2958

Cordner, G., & Cordner, A. (2011). Stuck on a plateau? Obstacles to recruitment, selection, and retention of women police. Police Quarterly, 14(3), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1098611111413990

Crank, J. P. (2004). Understanding police culture (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Engel, R. S. (2000). The effects of supervisory styles on patrol officer behavior. Police Quarterly, 3(3), 262–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611100003003003

Engel, R. S. (2001). Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(01)00091-5

Engel, R. S. (2002). Patrol officer supervision in the community policing era. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2352(01)00122-2

Haake, U. (2018). Conditions for gender equality in police leadership–making way for senior police women. Police Practice and Research, 19(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15614263.2017.1300772

Hyland, S. S., & Davis, E. (2019). Local police departments, 2016: Personnel (NCJ 252835). U.S. Department of Justice; Office of Justice Programs; Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Johnson, R. R. (2006). Management influences on officer traffic enforcement productivity. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(3), 205–217. https://doi.org/10. 1350/ijps.2006.8.3.205

Leger, K. (1997). Public perceptions of female police officers on patrol. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21(2), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02887451

Lonsway, K. A. (2000). Hiring and retaining more women: The advantages to law enforcement agencies. National Center for Women in Policing.

Martin, S. E. (1980). Breaking and entering: Police women on patrol. University of California Press.

Martin, S. E. (1989). Women on the move? A report on the status of women in policing. Police Foundation.

Maskaly, J., & Jennings, W. (2016). A question of style: Replicating and extending Engel’s supervisory styles with new agencies and newmeasures. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(4), 620–634. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-02- 2016-0029

Muir, W. K. (1977). Police: Streetcorner politicians. University of Chicago Press.

Osterling, K. L., & Hines, A. M. (2006). Mentoring adolescent foster youth: Promoting resilience during developmental transitions. Child & Family Social Work, 11(3), 242–253. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00427.x

638 Feminist Criminology 17(5)

Rabe-Hemp, C. (2008). Survival in an “all boys club”: Policewomen and their fight for ac- ceptance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510810878712

Rabe-Hemp, C. (2018). Thriving in an all-boys club: Female police and their fight for equality. Rowman; Littlefield.

Schulz, D.M. (2003). Women police chiefs: A statistical profile. Police Quarterly, 6(3), 330–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611103254317

Shjarback, J. A., & Todak, N. (2019). The prevalence of female representation in supervisory and management positions in American law enforcement: An examination of organizational correlates. Women & Criminal Justice, 29(3), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974454. 2018.1520674

Silvestri, M. (2006). Doing time’: Becoming a police leader. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(4), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2006.8.4.266

Silvestri, M. (2007). Doing” police leadership: Enter the “new smart macho. Policing & Society, 17(1), 38–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439460601124130

Silvestri, M. (2013). Women in charge: Policing, gender and leadership. Willan.

Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the law: Police and the excessive use of force. Free Press.

Sulton, C. G., & Townsey, R. D. (1981). A progress report on women in policing. Police Foundation.

Todak, N., & Brown, K. (2019). Policewomen of color: A state-of-the-art review. Policing: An International Journal, 42(6), 1052–1062. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-07-2019-0111.

Tyler, T. R. (2011). Trust and legitimacy: Policing in the USA and Europe. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370811411462

Van Maanen, J. (1983). The boss: First-line supervision in an American police agency. In M. Punch (Ed), Control in the police organization (pp. 275–317). MIT Press.

Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950-1990. Oxford University Press.

Walker, I. (2010). Introduction to early intervention systems. In R. G. Dunham, & G. P. Alpert (Eds), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (6th ed., pp. 181–196). Waveland Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01373-6_14

Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2013). Police in America (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law and order in eight communities. Harvard University Press.

Wolfe, S. E., & Lawson, S. G. (2020). The organizational justice effect among criminal justice employees: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 58(4), 619–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745- 9125.12251

Author biographies

Blake Beaton is a doctoral student in the College of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. His research interests include illegal drug use and qualitative methodology.

Beaton et al. 639

Natalie Todak is an Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Her research uses qualitative and mixed methods to study critical issues in policing. Her work is currently focused on women in law enforcement, police culture, misconduct, and whistleblowing. Dr. Todak is published in leading journals such as Criminology, Criminology and Public Policy, Journal of Experimental Criminology, and Police Quarterly. She is also a National Institute of Justice LEADS Academic in recognition of her collaborative work with departments to further evi- dence-based policing.

John Shjarback is an assistant professor in the Department of Law and Justice Studies at Rowan University. He received his Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Arizona State University in 2016. His research interests center on policing, specifically environmental and organizational influences on discretionary officer behavior and current issues and trends. His recent work has been featured in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminology & Public Policy, and Injury Prevention.

640 Feminist Criminology 17(5)