criminal justice organization (check attactment)

Chapter 2 pgs 36-40

What Is Leadership?

Over 20 years ago, Peter Drucker, often referred to as the business guru, conducted a study of the Los Angeles Police Department; among Drucker’s findings was: “You police are so concerned with doing things right that you fail to do the right things.” Drucker added, “Managers do things right; leaders do the right thing.” Another leadership guru, Warren Bennis, has said essentially the same thing. In other words, administrators cannot be so concerned with managing that they fail to lead. We now examine theories underlying leadership and what leaders can do to motivate their subordinates. Probably since the dawn of time, when cave dwellers clustered into hunting groups and some particularly dominant person assumed a leadership role over the party, administrators have received advice on how to do their jobs from those around them. Even today, manuals for leaders and upwardly mobile executives abound, offering quick studies in how to govern others. Although many have doubtlessly been profitable for their authors, most of these how-to primers on leading others enjoy only a brief, ephemeral existence.

To understand leadership, we must first define the term. This is an important and fairly complex undertaking, however. Perhaps the simplest definition is to say that leading is “getting things done through people.” In general, it may be said that a manager operates in the status quo, but a leader takes risks. Managers are conformers; leaders are reformers. Managers control; leaders empower. Managers supervise; leaders coach. Managers are efficient; leaders are effective. Managers are position oriented; leaders are people oriented. In sum, administrators must be both skilled managers and effective leaders.

Other definitions of leadership include the following:

· “The process of influencing the activities of an individual or a group in efforts toward goal achievement in a given situation”

· “Working with and through individuals and groups to accomplish organizational goals”

· “The activity of influencing people to strive willingly for group objectives”

· “The exercise of influence”

Conversely, it has been said that the manager may be viewed as a team captain, parent, steward, battle commander, fountain of wisdom, poker player, group spokesperson, gatekeeper, minister, drill instructor, facilitator, initiator, mediator, navigator, candy-store keeper, linchpin, umbrella-holder, and everything else between nurse and Attila-the-Hun.

In criminal justice organizations, leaders take the macro view; their role might best be defined as “the process of influencing organizational members to use their energies willingly and appropriately to facilitate the achievement of the [agency’s] goals.” We discuss leaders and managers in greater length later in this chapter and in Chapter 5 (the Mintzberg Model of CEOs).

Next, we discuss what kinds of activities and philosophies constitute leadership.

Trait Theory

Trait theory was popular until the 1950s, but it raises important questions for us today. This theory was based on the contention that good leaders possessed certain character traits that poor leaders did not. Those who developed this theory, Stogdill and Goode, believed that a leader could be identified through a two-step process. The first step involved studying leaders and comparing them to nonleaders to determine which traits only the leaders possessed. The second step sought people who possessed these traits to be promoted to managerial positions.

A study of 468 administrators in 13 companies found certain traits in successful administrators. They were more intelligent and better educated; had a stronger need for power; preferred independent activity, intense thought, and some risk; enjoyed relationships with people; and disliked detail work more than their subordinates. Figure 2-5 shows traits and skills commonly associated with leader effectiveness, according to Gary Yuki. Following this study, a review of the literature on trait theory revealed the traits most identified with leadership ability: intelligence, initiative, extroversion, a sense of humor, enthusiasm, fairness, sympathy, and self-confidence.

Trait theory has lost much of its support since the 1950s, partly because of the basic assumption of the theory that leadership cannot be taught. A more important reason, however, is simply the growth of new, more sophisticated approaches to the study of leadership. Quantifiable means to test trait theory were limited. What does it mean to say that a leader must be intelligent? By whose standards? Compared with persons within the organization or within society? How can traits such as a sense of humor, enthusiasm, fairness, and the others listed earlier be measured or tested? The inability to measure these factors was the real flaw and the reason for the decline of trait theory.

Style Theory

A study at Michigan State University investigated how leaders motivated individuals or groups to achieve organizational goals. The study determined that leaders must have a sense of the task to be accomplished as well as the environment in which their subordinates work. Three principles of leadership behavior emerged from the Michigan study:

1. Leaders must give task direction to their followers.

2. Closeness of supervision directly affects employee production. High-producing units had less direct supervision; highly supervised units had lower production. Conclusion: Employees need some area of freedom to make choices. Given this, they produce at a higher rate.

3. Leaders must be employee oriented. It is the leader’s responsibility to facilitate employees’ accomplishment of goals.

In the 1950s, Edwin Fleishman began studies of leadership at Ohio State University. After focusing on leader behavior rather than personality traits, he identified two dimensions or basic principles of leadership that could be taught: initiating structure and consideration. Initiating structure referred to supervisory behavior that focused on the achievement of organizational goals, and consideration was directed toward a supervisor’s openness to subordinates’ ideas and respect for their feelings as persons. High consideration and moderate initiating structure were assumed to yield higher job satisfaction and productivity than high initiating structure and low consideration.

The major focus of style theory is the adoption of a single managerial style by a manager based on his or her position in regard to initiating structure and consideration. Three pure leadership styles were thought to be the basis for all managers: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.

The autocratic style is leader centered and has a high initiating structure. An autocratic leader is primarily authoritarian in nature and prefers to give orders rather than invite group participation. Such a leader has a tendency to be personal with criticism. This style works best in emergency situations in which strict control and rapid decision making are needed. The problem with autocratic leadership is the organization’s inability to function when the leader is absent. It also stifles individual development and initiative because subordinates are rarely allowed to make an independent decision.

In the democratic style, the democratic leader tends to focus on working within the group and strives to attain cooperation from group members by eliciting their ideas and support. Democratic managers tend to be viewed as consideration oriented and strive to attain mutual respect with subordinates. These leaders operate within an atmosphere of trust and delegate much authority. The democratic style is useful in organizations in which the course of action is uncertain and problems are relatively unstructured. It often taps the decision-making ability of subordinates. In emergency situations requiring a highly structured response, however, democratic leadership may prove too time-consuming and awkward to be effective. Thus, although the worker may appreciate the strengths of this style, its weaknesses must be recognized as well.

In the laissez-faire style, the laissez-faire leader has a hands-off approach in which the leader is actually a nonleader. The organization in effect runs itself, with no input or control from the manager. This style has no positive aspects, as the entire organization is soon placed in jeopardy. In truth, this may not be a leadership style at all; instead, it may be an abdication of administrative duties.

Situational Leadership Theory

Similar to style theory, situational leadership theory (SLT), popularized by Hersey and Blanchard, assumes that leaders are most effective when they are adaptable. Rather than trait theory’s focus on ideal leadership characteristics, SLT suggests that the best leadership style is situationally dependent based on the interaction of task behavior and relationship behavior. Task behavior refers to the extent to which leaders define the roles of members of their group—leaders who essentially tell their group members what to do and when to do it. Relationship behavior, on the other hand, refers to the extent to which leaders form relationships with members of their group—leaders who essentially provide emotional support and psychological strokes.

From the interaction between task behavior and relationship behavior, four leadership styles emerge, each of which ideally surfaces based on the context (or situation) before the leader.

· “Telling” leaders are high in task behavior and low in relationship behavior. In this scenario, you might imagine a leader barking orders at a correctional officer who repeatedly is not making the grade.

· “Selling” leaders are high in task behavior and high in relationship behavior. In this scenario, you might imagine a leader who seeks the input from her captain to solve a problem, but in the end, if the input does not match the leader’s ideas on how to solve the problem, the leader will stick to her guns.

· “Participating” leaders are low in task behavior and high in relationship behavior. In this scenario, the leader uses participatory leadership techniques that create buy-in by organizational members for new initiatives or problem resolution.

· “Delegating” leaders are low in task behavior and low in relationship behavior. Here, a leader might outline broad goals to a working group and ask group members to devise ways to attain the goals with little interference.

The key features of SLT include the interaction between task behavior and relationship behavior, which is dictated by both employee readiness (the extent to which the employee is ready to do the job) and psychological readiness (the extent to which the employee can assume responsibility for getting the job done).

Characteristics and Skills of America’s Best Leaders

“Good in Their Skin”

Given today’s deep-seated skepticism and distrust of leaders—often justified by public- and private-sector leaders’ ethical violations, fraud, and cover-ups—it may seem that there is a complete dearth of leadership. But who are the leaders making a difference? A national panel sifted through nominations and agreed on a small group of men and women who embody the more important traits of leadership. The survey determined that there is not a lack of leadership, but rather a “wrong-headed notion of what a leader is,” causing leaders to be hired for their style rather than substance and their image instead of integrity. It was also learned that there is no shortage of people with the capacity to lead who are just waiting for the opportunity.

The survey found that twenty-first-century authentic leaders know who they are; they are “good in their skin,” so they do not feel a need to impress or please others. They inspire those around them and bring people together around a shared purpose and a common set of values. They know the “true north” of their moral compass and are prepared to stay the course despite challenges and disappointments. They are more concerned about serving others than about their own success or recognition. By acknowledging their weaknesses, failings, and errors, they connect with people and empower them to take risks. Usually authentic leaders demonstrate the following five traits: pursuing their purpose with passion, practicing solid values, leading with their hearts as well as their heads, establishing connected relationships, and demonstrating self-discipline.

For a less contemporary, classical view of what skills leaders need to possess, we consider the views of Robert Katz.

Katz’s Three Skills

Robert Katz, in 1975, identified three essential skills that leaders should possess: technical, human, and conceptual. Katz defined a skill as the capacity to translate knowledge into action in such a way that a task is accomplished successfully. Each of these skills (when performed effectively) results in the achievement of objectives and goals, which is the primary task of management.

Technical skills are those a manager needs to ensure that specific tasks are performed correctly. They are based on proven knowledge, procedures, or techniques. A police detective, a court administrator, and a probation officer have all developed technical skills directly related to the work they perform. Katz wrote that a technical skill “involves specialized knowledge, analytical ability within that specialty, and facility in the use of the tools and techniques of the specific discipline.” This is the skill most easily trained for. A court administrator, for example, has to be knowledgeable in areas such as computer applications, budgeting, caseload management, space utilization, public relations, and personnel administration; a police detective must possess technical skills in interviewing, fingerprinting, and surveillance techniques.

Human skills involve working with people, including being thoroughly familiar with what motivates employees and how to utilize group processes. Katz visualized human skills as including “the executive’s ability to work effectively as a group member and to build cooperative effort within the team he leads.” Katz added that the human relations skill involves tolerance of ambiguity and empathy. Tolerance of ambiguity means that the manager is able to handle problems when insufficient information precludes making a totally informed decision. Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another’s place. An awareness of human skills allows a manager to provide the necessary leadership and direction, ensuring that tasks are accomplished in a timely fashion and with the least expenditure of resources.

Conceptual skills, Katz said, involve “coordinating and integrating all the activities and interests of the organization toward a common objective.” Katz considered such skills to include “an ability to translate knowledge into action.” For example, in a criminal justice setting, a court decision concerning the admissibility of evidence would need to be examined in terms of how it affects detectives, other court cases, the forensic laboratory, the property room, and the work of the street officer.

Katz emphasized that these skills can be taught to actual and prospective administrators; thus, good administrators are not simply born but can be trained in the classroom. Furthermore, all three of these skills are present in varying degrees at each management level. As one moves up the hierarchy, conceptual skills become more important and technical skills less important. The common denominator for all levels of management is human skills. In today’s litigious environment, it is inconceivable that a manager could neglect the human skills.