issues in criminal justice discussion

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Developing effective leadership in policing: perils, pitfalls, and paths forward Joseph A. Schafer

Article information: To cite this document: Joseph A. Schafer, (2009),"Developing effective leadership in policing: perils, pitfalls, and paths forward", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 32 Iss 2 pp. 238 - 260 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510910958163

Downloaded on: 14 February 2017, At: 15:14 (PT) References: this document contains references to 75 other documents. To copy this document: [email protected] The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4311 times since 2009*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded: (2003),"Senior police leadership: does rank matter?", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 26 Iss 3 pp. 400-418 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510310489467 (2006),"Following the leader: front-line narratives on police leadership", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 29 Iss 4 pp. 757-767 http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510610711646

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:444336 []

For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Developing effective leadership in policing: perils, pitfalls,

and paths forward Joseph A. Schafer

Center for the Study of Crime, Delinquency and Corrections, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA

Abstract

Purpose – Leadership plays a key role ensuring the achievement of desired outcomes in both formal and informal groups. Insufficient leadership in policing can result in significant negative consequences for agencies and their personnel. Despite the importance of effective leadership within police organizations little is known about the process of developing effective leaders and leadership behaviors. The paper contributes to the limited available empirical knowledge using data collected from police supervisors. The intent is to assess supervisors’ perceptions of how leadership abilities might best be developed and to identify the barriers inhibiting such efforts.

Design/methodology/approach – Open-ended surveys are administered to students attending the FBI’s National Academy, a career development program for mid-career police supervisors. Respondents report their experiences with and perceptions of leadership development. The purposive sample of respondents provides insights from supervisors representing police agencies of various sizes and types from around the world.

Findings – Respondents indicate leadership skills are best developed through a combination of education, experience, and mentorship. Developing more effective leadership is dependent on the ability to overcome barriers, both within the profession and within individual officers. Finite resources, macro and local aspects of police culture, and failures of leadership by current executives are all viewed as working against the growth of effective leadership practices.

Research limitations/implications – Given the dearth of empirical research considering dimensions of police leadership, myriad implications for future research are identified and discussed.

Originality/value – The findings provide important preliminary insights into the experiences and beliefs of police supervisors.

Keywords Leadership development, Police, Organizational change, Education, Mentoring, United States of America

Paper type Research paper

Leadership, or its absence, is recognized as a key force shaping outputs and outcomes in most formal or informal organization. The need for effective leadership in policing is quite evident. One only needs to examine the range of historical and contemporary accounts of police officers and organizations breaching their duty to serve the public with professionalism, integrity, accountability, and the preservation of rights. At the core of too many of these violations is a lack of adequate leadership (Baker, 2000;

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

The author would like to thank the men and women in FBI NA sessions 226-229 for their cooperation and candor. He is also grateful to Dr John Jarvis, Supervisory Special Agent Dr Carl Jensen (FBI retired), Mr Harry Kern (retired Unit Chief of the FBI Behavior Science Unit), and the staff of the FBI NA for their support of this project.

PIJPSM 32,2

238

Received 3 March 2008 Revised 21 June 2008 Accepted 30 June 2008

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Vol. 32 No. 2, 2009 pp. 238-260 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1363-951X DOI 10.1108/13639510910958163

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Meese and Ortmeier, 2004; Reese, 2005). More generally, changes both small and large in scope require that someone provide the initiative to articulate a vision and muster the requisite personnel and resources to bring it to fruition (Greene, 1998; Sadd and Grinc, 1996). Critical views of police organizations, as well as bureaucracy in general, challenge the idea that leadership is likely to emerge from the structural and cultural milieu characterizing these environs (Mastrofski, 1998; Osborne and Gaebler, 1992). Despite the presumed centrality of leadership within the policing profession it is anecdotally noted that agencies lament the absence of promotional candidates of adequate quality and caliber (Haberfeld, 2006). The absence of quality leaders in policing is, in part, due to a common failure to develop officers to become more effective leaders.

Though effective leadership is a desired commodity within policing limited scholarly attention has been given to studying the leadership process and the barriers to developing more efficacious leadership practices (Mastrofski, 2006). Much of what is known has been based on limited observations, small case studies, and anecdotal accounts of “celebrity” chiefs (Haberfeld, 2006; O’Hara, 2005; Reese, 2005). These accounts provide descriptive insights, but are limited in advancing deeper understandings of leadership practices and development. Extant literature tells us little, if anything, about the nature, development, and application of effective leadership practices in policing. Using survey data collected from police supervisors attending the FBI National Academy (NA), this study sought to begin addressing this void. Supervisors reported opinions, insights, and experiences on a range of leadership issues. Consideration is given to the development of effective leadership, as well as the barriers (both professionally and within individual circumstances) perceived to limit the expansion of effective leadership in policing.

Leadership in police organizations The importance of leadership as a social concern can be traced back some 7,000 years, yet the exact definition and nature of this concept remains elusive. Leadership, supervision, and management are all terms used interchangeably, despite their distinctions (House and Aditya, 1997; House and Podsakoff, 1994; Meese and Ortmeier, 2004). In one of the seminal considerations of leadership theory and research, Bass (1990) noted definitions of leadership are almost as numerous as those who have endeavored to discuss the concept. Despite the variability and ambiguity surrounding the exact meaning of leadership, Bass articulates commonalities that unify many of the definitions. He notes that leadership concerns how groups can be influenced and/or induced into compliance through the personality, power, persuasion, and behavior of key individuals. These efforts are generally intended to create needed structure and/or coordinate efforts toward the achievement of goals. For the purpose of this study, the focus is on leadership exerted by, or absent from, police officers holding or aspiring toward formal supervisory positions.

Studies of leadership and supervisory styles within policing show leaders employ a range of styles beyond the traditional autocratic approach (Adlam, 2002; Brehm and Gates, 1993; Brewer et al., 1994; Engel, 2001, 2002; Kuykendall, 1977; Kuykendall and Unsinger, 1982; Sutherland and Reuss-Ianni, 1992). Subordinates report preference for more supportive and participatory approaches (Jermier and Berkes, 1979; Witte et al., 1990), and preliminary evidence suggests police executives may be similarly open-minded (Hoover and Mader, 1990). Likewise, it has conventionally been assumed that bringing about change in police organizations is akin to “bending granite” (Guyot, 1975;

Developing effective

leadership

239

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Crank, 2004; Rowe, 2006). In recent years, however, anecdotal evidence suggests this may not always be the case. Case studies of community policing have highlighted the role of leadership as a mechanism to facilitate rapid (and at times, radical) organizational transformation (Greene, 1998; Schafer, 2002; Wycoff and Skogan, 1994a, b). Though critics have dismissed the roles of William Bratton and COMPSTAT as causal forces influencing New York city’s crime decline, there can be little doubt that his leadership style in NYPD (and elsewhere) has brought about rapid change in climate and culture (Haberfeld, 2006).

Literature on leadership in policing has, with a few notable exceptions, focused on either the possible application of general organizational and leadership theories within policing contexts (Adlam and Villiers, 2003; Haberfeld, 2006; Meese and Ortmeier, 2004) or sought to offer broader descriptive accounts of how police supervisors perform their duties (e.g. developing typologies; Brehm and Gates, 1993; Engel, 2001). Less has been done to examine leadership within the cultural and occupational contexts of policing. Existing research is also limited by the methodological designs and statistical techniques researchers have employed, contributing to inconsistent results (Engel, 2002; House and Aditya, 1997; Mastrofski, 2006).

The influence of police supervisors The importance of police supervisors (formal leaders) in shaping organizational contexts and outcomes in police organizations is generally accepted (Engel, 2001, 2002; Engel and Worden, 2003; Trojanowicz, 1980). Although external pressures (Maguire, 2003) and the culture of a police organization (Kappeler et al., 1998) can be powerful forces shaping and influencing officer conduct[1], the tone set by supervisors throughout the organization is also assumed to play a key role in these processes (Adlam, 2002). Unlike many other organizational contexts, however, leadership and supervision in policing are complicated by the diffuse environments in which officers work and the very nature of police work (Brown, 1988; Lipsky, 1980; Lundman, 1979; Van Maanen, 1983). Police organizations are generally conceived to use quasi-military models, predicated on command-and-obey relations between supervisors and subordinates (Buerger, 2000; Cowper, 2000). Though some literature suggest there are strong divisions between police supervisors (management cops) and front-line officers (street cops) (Crank, 2004; Reuss-Ianni, 1983) there is variation on this theme.

Achieving a positive leadership influence on police personnel incurs challenges not seen in many other occupational contexts. Police officers operate in environments with limited direct supervision, handle a diverse range of tasks, and make myriad high-discretion decisions (Allen, 1982; Engel, 2001, 2002; Van Maanen, 1983, 1984). Despite the limited extent of direct contact officers have with those in formal positions of leadership (i.e. supervisors), research suggests officer behavior can be subject to some level of supervisory influence. Empirical inquiry into supervisory influence has tended to focus on traditional policing outcomes, including enforcement behavior (Allen and Maxfield, 1983; Engel, 2000; Mastrofski et al., 1994; Smith, 1984), use of force (Engel, 2000), and officer misbehavior (Bittner, 1983; Brehm and Gates, 1993; Brown, 1988; Huberts et al., 2007; Reiss, 1971). A handful of studies have endeavored to examine outcomes associated with community-oriented policing approaches, such as the nature of encounters with the public (Allen, 1982) and self-initiated efforts officer undertake to address specific problems (Engel, 2002). This body of research has achieved mixed outcomes in determining whether and how supervisors can influence the job-related

PIJPSM 32,2

240

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

behavior of subordinate personnel (Allen, 1982; Allen and Maxfield, 1983; Brehm and Gates, 1993; Brown, 1988; Mastrofski et al., 1994; Muir, 1977; National Research Council, 2004; Reiss, 1971; Smith, 1984; Wilson, 1968). More recent scholarship using data from the project on policing neighborhoods offers conditional endorsements of the influence of police supervisors (Engel, 2000, 2001, 2002; Engel and Worden, 2003). Observed variation in supervisory influence is partially a product of dissimilarity in supervisory styles; a leader’s approach often varies by context, audience, and time based on perceived situational exigencies (Brehm and Gates, 1993; Brewer et al., 1994; Densten, 2003; Hersey et al., 2008; Kuykendall, 1977; Kuykendall and Unsinger, 1982).

The absence of effective leadership (or perhaps worse, the presence of ineffective leadership) can produce real and tangible consequences in the workplace (Buzawa, 1984; House and Podsakoff, 1994; Kelloway et al., 2005). Negative outcomes include poor productivity, dissatisfaction, stress, attrition, and absenteeism, among other concerns. Though leadership produces real consequences, agencies often fail to make leadership development a priority or lack the resources to focus on this concern. Consequently, agencies and personnel often lament that, when supervisory positions become available, there is an absence of suitable candidates qualified for promotion (Haberfeld, 2006).

Leadership development Decades of inquiry into leadership have produced tangible insights into traits, behaviors, and theories related to this concept; much less is known about how to develop effective leaders (House and Aditya, 1997; House and Podsakoff, 1994). Though leadership is of clear importance in shaping officer behavior and productivity (both the volume of work officers produce and how they go about that production process), most agencies give little or no attention to formal efforts to develop leadership skills. This is true both in terms of developing the leadership performance for formal leaders, as well as developing the leadership potential among those aspiring to supervisory positions (Anderson et al., 2006) or providing informal leadership (London et al., 2007). This lack of consideration is a function of resource limitations, but also results from the lack of social science inquiry into the leadership development process.

Much has been written in general support of leadership development. There are myriad books and training programs that seek to enhance the skills of current leaders and/or develop the skills of potential leaders. Most of these programs are based in the corporate world, though programs for policing contexts are not uncommon. Based on the notion that “every officer is a leader” Anderson et al. (2006) articulate a popular vision of leadership in policing, contending that all officers engage in some form of leadership in the performance of their duties (Kingshott, 2006). Agencies are told to coach and develop leadership throughout an officer’s career, seeking continuous leadership improvement (through assessment and learning) even among personnel who may never achieve formal rank. The “West Point” model of leadership development exposes current and prospective leaders to dominant leadership and management theories (International Association of Chiefs of Police, n.d.)[2]. Though the West Point model could work through self-study, its ideal application appears to be via conventional police training. Some individual agencies and state training commissions offer the West Point training to supervisors in their jurisdictions. A number of states also operate “command colleges” intended to further the leadership and management development of participating officers.

Developing effective

leadership

241

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

McCall and Hollenbeck (2007) contend the prevailing problem with leadership development is a tendency to focus on competencies, not competence. Despite “an unending flow of books, videotapes, and leadership gurus, despite leadership development that costs millions of dollars each year” there is still an absence of true and effective leadership in most organizations (McCall and Hollenbeck, 2007, p. 87). Participants in development programs are exposed to many ideas, however, a gap exists between understanding ideas and applying them in an efficacious manner. Further, there is a dearth of evidence that particular leadership development programs produce tangible results. Though making such an assessment clearly presents methodological challenges, such obstacles are not insurmountable (Mastrofski, 2006). The field of leadership development is left with a set of noble ideas, but scant validation such ideas actually develop better leaders[3].

Research objective This paper reports findings from a broader study of effective police leadership. In particular, it focuses on the leadership perceptions, experiences, and challenges reported by a sample of police supervisors. Three main questions are of relevance here. First, how did respondents believe agencies might most effectively develop police leaders? Second, what barriers did respondents see to the expansion of effective leadership practices within the policing profession? Third, what personal obstacles did respondents believe inhibited their efforts to be more effective leaders in their own workplace? Though perceptions do not equate with empirical validation of any given approach, the reported ideas provide preliminary insight into promising approaches and the challenges that must be overcome. They also provide a framework for future research intended to validate specific models of leadership development.

Data and methods Data were derived from police supervisors attending the Federal Bureau of Investigation NA program in Quantico, Virginia. The NA is an advanced education and development program for police supervisors; each ten-week session services 250-300 officers from around the world in a residential learning experience. Attending the NA is akin to a ten-week sabbatical; attendees are in residence at the FBI Academy, where they complete the equivalent of one quarter of university-level education. Attendees select from a range of courses to fill their academic schedule. Faculty are grouped into “departments” based on their expertise and offer courses within that field of study (i.e. leadership, behavioral science, law, and communications), though issues of leadership are expected to permeate the program. Attendees earn undergraduate or graduate credit through the University of Virginia for the courses they complete. The duration and residential aspect of the program are intended to help attendees step away from the day to day “noise” and distractions within their agency; to think critically about how they can improve both their agency’s performance and their own professional development. The NA is designed to deliver other enriching experiences and to provide an opportunity for attendees to network with peers from around the world.

Agencies nominate their supervisory personnel to attend the program. Domestically, participants represent the range of American policing, including municipal, county, state, and federal police agencies, as well as various special policing services (e.g. police forces servicing colleges, school districts, tribal areas,

PIJPSM 32,2

242

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

transportation systems, and the legal system). A small number of international participants are invited into the program. Candidates for Chief of Police positions in medium and large agencies are frequently required to have completed the NA or a comparable developmental experience. Given these circumstances, supervisors sent to the NA are generally among the “best and brightest” within their agency, though departmental politics, favoritism, and nepotism sometimes dictate who agencies nominate to attend the program.

This sample, while purposive, provides a unique opportunity to gauge the perceptions and experiences of officers from a highly diverse mix of agencies (e.g. agency size, location, context, and jurisdiction). The benefit of this population lies in the diversity of available views and experiences. NA seats are allotted to agencies, which select the specific supervisor who will fill that slot. A general (though not statistically driven) effort is made to allocate seats to agencies in such a way that attendees represent diverse experiences, mandates, and regions. Surveying any given session of attendees provides the opportunity to gauge the experiences and insights of supervisors representing myriad policing systems from around the world. Researching the NA offers access to a broad cross-section of views and experiences that would not be available without far more complex and expensive sampling methodologies. The sample provides insights from a range of police professionals that are particularly well-suited to support exploratory and descriptive inquiry.

Participants in NA Sessions 226-229 (July 2006-April 2007) were given the opportunity to complete an open-ended survey instrument within their first two days (prior to the start of courses). The early administration of the survey ensured responses were not subject to any contamination effect based on what attendees may have been studying in their courses. The survey was administered in large groups (50-250 officers). Of the 1,097 officers attending the NA during this period of time[4], 769 (70.1 percent) completed all or part of the survey. Various iterations of the survey were used across these four sessions, though a common set of questions was used throughout the project. For example, in a given session half of the surveys may have asked respondents to discuss what prevented them from being more effective leaders, while the other half might have asked respondents to identify barriers the prevented the expansion of effective leadership within the policing profession. Any given item reported herein was answered by 200-500 officers across the four sessions.

Reponses were reviewed multiple times to identify key patterns and themes in the responses (Lee, 1999; Strauss, 1987). The open nature of the survey instrument resulted in individual responses ranging in length from a single word to a long paragraph. In addition, respondents at times used phrases and short-hand in lieu of complete sentences, making it difficult to determine intent and meaning. Consequently, the analysis focused on latent patterns and themes (i.e. identifying commonalities emerging across the responses to a given question) rather than taking a manifest approach (seeking to strictly count each appearance of a word, phrase, or concept; Berg, 2001). The findings report the approximate proportion of responses including individual themes; the vague and ambiguous nature of some statements precluded precise categorization of select responses. The proportions are presented to provide rough context rather than mathematical prevalence for each theme. Themes were not mutually exclusive; a given response could touch on several themes related to the issue at hand.

Developing effective

leadership

243

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Findings Participants did not disclose their identity, but were asked to report their years of service, years as a supervisor, military experience, level of education, agency size[5], agency type[6], current job title, and whether they were American or international. Quotes are attributed to individuals based on their title, agency size, and agency type; unless otherwise noted, respondents were American. On average, respondents had 19.4 years of policing experience (range 6-37 years) and 10.1 years of supervisory experience (range 0-36 years[7]); 91 percent were American. Approximately, one-quarter (191 respondents) indicated prior military service with an average duration of 7.7 years (range 0.5-30 years). Table I provides additional contextual information on respondent education, agency size, and agency type.

The pool of questions asked over the course of the research project focused on how officers defined effective leadership, the measurement of leadership outcomes, experiences with leadership in their agency, traits and habits of effective and ineffective leaders, impediments to enhancing effective leadership, and methods of leadership development. This paper focuses on the barriers obstructing the expansion of effective leadership practices and the methods that might assist in developing leadership skills among police personnel. As evidenced by the review of literature, leadership in policing does have tangible connections with the work-behaviors and practices of personnel. Further, efforts to enhance and reform police agencies and operations are predicated on the abilities of leaders to properly motivate, engage, and monitor subordinate personnel. Despite the centrality of leadership, officers, supervisors, and executives frequently lament the absence of effective leadership practices within contemporary policing (Haberfeld, 2006)[8].

In presenting the research findings, the focus is on the core themes emerging from the responses provided in this research project; every emergent theme is not presented.

Frequency %

Respondents’ highest level of education High school/GED 26 3.4 Some college 149 19.4 Associates degree 81 10.5 Bachelors degree 240 31.2 Some graduate/law work 83 10.8 Graduate/law degree 175 22.8 Respondents’ agency type Municipal/city 411 53.4 County 170 22.1 State 93 12.1 National 45 5.9 Other 37 4.8 Respondents’ agency size 0-50 185 24.1 51-100 124 16.1 101-250 148 19.2 251-1000 158 20.5 1001þ 140 18.2

Note: Categories may not sum to 769 and percents may not sum to 100.0 due to missing data

Table I. Respondent education, agency type and agency size

PIJPSM 32,2

244

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

In particular, consideration is given to how agencies might facilitate the expansion of effective leadership and the barriers (both within the profession and within individual participants) that worked against this expansion. The challenge for agencies and executives is to overcome the various internal, external, and personal forces working against the growth of these practices. Quotes presented in this section have not been corrected for spelling or grammar.

Promoting the expansion of effective leadership Promoting the expansion of effective leadership within policing reportedly involved a number of steps. Potential leaders needed to be provided with a foundation of education and training (identified by two-fifths of respondents) coupled with experiences and mentorship (identified by one-third of respondents) to understand leader-follower dynamics, decision making, and the thought processes leaders ought to employ. Respondents felt this process needed to take place both before and after leaders were granted promotions in rank. Effective leadership was also reported to be a function of the practices of other leaders (identified by one-third of respondents); seeing other leaders perform their duties in an appropriate manner would serve to further demonstrate desired leadership qualities.

Education and training. Respondents were asked whether leaders were born or made. Though a small proportion felt leaders were born, the vast majority felt effective leaders were made or had innate skills that could be enhanced by education, training, and experience. Some respondents felt such processes should begin very early in an officer’s career, perhaps even as a component of pre-service (academy) training. “From day one provide leadership training and core skill enhancement training” (Deputy Chief, large municipal agency). “Teach leadership & ethics throughout the training process, instead of as single, stand-alone topics. Incorporate them in day to day operations” (Patrol Commander, mid-size municipal agency). This approach is akin to that currently employed by the USA military, which provides successive leadership training to personnel as they rise through the ranks.

Though some respondents felt leadership education and training should focus on those most likely to rise through the ranks, others felt initial efforts were better focused in a broad manner. This was based on the contemporary notion that “every officer is a leader” (Anderson et al., 2006) and effective leaders sometimes emerge only after they have been exposed to developmental efforts. Regardless of whether they were likely to become formal leaders, providing leadership training early in officers’ careers might benefit agencies by ensuring all personnel saw “the ‘big picture’ of the dept.’s goals and [. . .] [understood] the thought process of their leaders” (Lieutenant, small municipal agency). Though only a limited number of officers would rise to formal supervisory positions, it was thought beneficial if every officer had a basic command of leadership theories and skills. A given officer might not be a supervisor in their agency, but leadership training might enable that officer to be more effective in mobilizing citizens, coordinating peers, and facilitating the efficient operation of their agency.

Education and training opportunities needed to be timely and locally available. These opportunities needed to be given to people before and/or at the point of promotion. “[T]he average age of the NA graduate is 41 yrs. I am 47 but was a sergeant at 32 and a Lt at 40 and a Captain at 45. Look at the amount of time that was lost” (Commander, medium municipal agency). Failing to provide education and training in a timely manner allowed

Developing effective

leadership

245

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

supervisors to develop deeply-ingrained bad habits, to sow ill-will, to miss beneficial opportunities, and to “burn bridges” with co-workers, community members, and the broader professional community. Education opportunities needed to familiarize officers with general theories of leadership and interpersonal dynamics as they related with police organizations. Training was thought more appropriate when focused on developing self-awareness (i.e. identifying one’s leadership style) and techniques of relevance in policing. Academic perspectives were seen to be of relevance in both education and training, however respondents also indicated instruction should be provided by relevant professionals, including “the very best leaders in your organization” (Chief, large campus agency).

Development, mentorship, experience and feedback. Closely related with education and training were opportunities for officers to develop their leadership skills through on-the-job experiences. Respondents recognized the value in teaching fundamentals and theories of leadership, but felt this learning would be enhanced through the guided application. Empowering officers with the opportunity to take a leadership role over finite projects and/or in the field (i.e. coordinating the handling of an incident or investigation) allowed the opportunity to apply leadership principles. Ideally this would be done under the guidance of an identified leader (perhaps even a designated mentor) who could serve as a safety net and resource, providing performance feedback at the conclusion of the experience.

A Lieutenant in a mid-size municipal agency noted that agencies needed to identify potential leaders, “[g]ive them small projects for their own to work start to finish, stay out of way unless assistance is requested, [and] give an honest critique at end.” As time progressed and officers developed leadership skills the intensity of this process could increase. A Sergeant from a small municipal agency remarked agencies could continue this basic experience-mentorship-feedback process by “giving them responsibility commensurate with their position and steadily increasing as they improve themselves.” Leadership education and experience did not have to be reserved for those seeking promotion or who had recently been promoted; they could be provided to all officers as a way to elevate the level of leadership within the agency. It was hoped such a process would cultivate both formal and informal leaders within an agency. Formally, those reaching supervisory rank would already bring strong skills to their position; informally, every officer would have the skills to lead during the routine performance of duties.

This process needed to include a capacity to accept failure; bias should not be held for errors made in good faith or otherwise unsuccessful efforts. Such circumstances could still be used as teaching moments to help officers further cultivate and refine leadership skills. Those assisting and evaluating officers in their early leadership efforts should take care to “not beat them down for making an error [. . .] you will end up with a beaten child who will be that way if he [sic] gets promoted” (Commander, small municipal agency). Police agencies have often found it difficult to tolerate failure, though perfection is an unrealistic expectation of police personnel. A Major from a medium municipal agency noted that holding officers at fault for good faith failure has resulted in agencies promoting the limited number of officers who have avoided “self-destructing” during the course of their career. Viewed in this way, promotion systems reward inaction; officers willing to accept challenges and take risks will be more likely to fail. The safe path to promotion might actually be avoiding true leadership.

Practices of effective leaders. It was important to ensure officers were able to work under the direction of well-regarded leaders within an agency. Respondents frequently

PIJPSM 32,2

246

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

identified the need for “leadership by example.” Modeling desired leadership behaviors was of critical importance; “[p]rovide them with an example to emulate.” (Lieutenant, major state agency). Seeing another officer or supervisor who led (formally or informally) with professionalism, integrity, and dedication was thought to be a powerful force in the development of quality officers and future leaders[9]. Officers can learn from the effective leadership they observe, as well as by witnessing poor leaders and leadership. A Captain from a large county agency remarked that “[f]or me it was my role models, my supervisors. Some were bad, some were good. Took traits from both.”

Emerging from respondent’s comments was the notion that building an understanding of leadership principles (education and training), providing constructive experiences (mentorship and feedback), and showing officers how effective leaders operate (modeling) was a powerful combination of forces and influences in leadership development. A Lieutenant from a large state agency summarized this formula as: “Model yourself for them. Give them responsibility and hold them accountable. Train them to take your job. Position them into leadership roles.” The path toward more effective leadership within policing seemed clear and within grasp; what remained, however, were questions regarding why this path was so difficult to follow – what barriers prevented more effective leadership practices?

Barriers within the profession The pool of survey questions included items asking respondents to describe what prevented the growth of more efficacious leadership practices, both within the policing profession and within the respondent as an individual leader. These questions were based on the premise that ineffective leadership, while not universal, was common in most agencies. Even where leadership worked well, there might be room for improvement. Four primary themes emerged when officers were asked to consider “the biggest challenges inhibiting the expansion of effective leadership in policing.” These themes are grouped here into the categories of structural limitations (identified by one-third of respondents), cultural constraints (identified by one-third of respondents), external barriers (identified by one-sixth of respondents), and the failure to lead (identified by one-fifth of respondents).

Structural limitations. Though effective leadership might be conceptualized as a behavioral set requiring little, if any, temporal and fiscal investment, finite time and money restricted its expansion. Respondents framed these as limitations because agencies appeared to have difficulty “[u]tilizing our resources to develop the number one resource, the worker” (Captain, major municipal agency). These notions denote that while effective leadership itself may cost little in terms of resource investment, developing leadership skills required the commitment of tangibles such as time, money, and personnel. In tight fiscal circumstances other concerns might be of greater priority. This matter became all the more pressing in agencies experiencing high rates of retirement among senior officers. “We are seeing a lack of preparation of young people being put into leadership roles and we are losing a lot of the great leaders into retirement” (Sergeant, small municipal agency).

The expansion of effective leadership was limited by an inability to develop leadership potentials among officers showing promise as future leaders and to identify qualified officers for promotion. Agencies often fail “to identify candidates with leadership skills early in their career and then develop these skills” (Staff Sergeant, large international municipal agency). The traditional criminal justice power structure places heavy emphasis on top-down authority, as well as command and obey relations between

Developing effective

leadership

247

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

supervisors and subordinates. Employees may suffer from a “lack of opportunities for one to showcase his/her skills” as a potential leader (Division Head, mid-sized international federal agency). As discussed earlier, respondents believed it was critical to afford officers the opportunity to develop experience as a leader and to cultivate leadership skills. In this way, newly promoted personnel would have some baseline of knowledge and experience from which to draw.

Many respondents felt their agency failed to effectively identify officers suitable for promotion into supervisory positions. Respondents believed their agencies relied on assessment standards and selection processes that were convenient and legally defensible, though not necessarily effective. A Commander from a major international federal agency noted that “[i]mproper assessment method in [country omitted] facilitates promotion that is not based on performance/productivity.” This sentiment was elaborated by another respondent:

Administrators looking at peoples paper accomplishments vs what they have been doing in the field. The guy who has avoided getting dirty and punched his ticket vs the guy who is in the mud puddle getting the job done. Administrators tend to focus on the first group rather than the second or a combo of the two [. . .] we have diminished the quality of our leaders. We promote those who can take a good test or build a paper empire but have little “real” experience in the field (Sergeant, mid-size municipal agency, emphasis in the original).

Ineffective promotional standards and processes had a secondary effect on employee morale; “[p]romotions of inexperienced staff for personal or political reasons, cause a decline in morale of line staff & discouraging their desire to promote” (Deputy Commander, small state agency).

Respondents felt the expansion of effective leadership was limited by human resource and administrative rules. Too often, agencies failed “to remove people in their positions who are ineffective leaders” (Lieutenant, medium municipal agency). Civil service standards and various administrative “nonsensical rules” (Chief of Division, major international agency) made it difficult for agencies to address known problems. This failure to act when a leader was not performing, either by removing that person from a supervisory position or addressing deficiencies through some form of remediation, further exacerbated existing morale issues. Ineffective leaders demoralized subordinates and co-workers, presented a poor image of the agency within the community, and served as poor role models for future generations. The problem did not appear to be identifying these individuals, though some respondents felt their agencies were disinclined to engage in such organizational introspection; the challenge lay in remedying that problem.

Cultural constraints. Beyond these structural constraints, respondents believed the culture common to police organizations worked against the development and expansion of effective leadership behaviors. The culture of policing has long-been associated with a resistance to change (Crank, 2004; Guyot, 1975), including a perceived tendency to place little or no emphasis on leadership development. Respondents felt there was “NO incentives to change – policing rewards those that conform not those that challenge” (Captain, large municipal agency). There was a sense that many in agencies did not want to change past practices concerning selection and development of supervisory personnel. The belief:

[. . .] that “we have always done it this way” or “if it’s not broken, don’t fix it” prevents consideration that maybe it shouldn’t be done that way any more or that there might be a better way (Captain, large county agency).

PIJPSM 32,2

248

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Respondents framed the issue of effective leadership as one example of how agencies and their top executives were entrenched in past practices. “People [are] not willing to change. Stuck in paradigm paralysis. It is easier to not take the effort to be highly successful that it does to just fit in with the main stream” (Lieutenant, medium municipal agency). Adherence to past practice led to passive avoidance of new ideas and innovations. In the experiences of some respondents this avoidance took a more active form. “Close minded leaders intimidate and prevent subordinate leaders from taking the risks they need to grow” (Captain, medium municipal agency). Though academic studies of the propensity of police cultures to resist change focus on this tendency among front-line personnel (Schafer, 2001) respondents saw this embodied among top executives.

Respondents further reported culture inhibited the expansion of effective leadership by fostering of a focus on self among officers. Effective leadership was inhibited by “[a]n arrogant attitude. Feeling like you have the answers and you are always right” (Captain, medium county agency). Beyond this general sense that ego influenced the situation, many respondents cast negative light on the leadership potential of younger officers. “I feel that with the new officers selfishness prohibits them from being an effective leader. They only think about themselves. Leader must be interested in what is best for his/her subordinates” (First Lieutenant, major state agency). “New generation of people/officers [. . .] seem to feel entitled to things they don’t necessarily earn” (Captain, medium municipal agency). The tension between respondents (who were generally mid- to late-career officers) and those newly hired within agencies was a consistent theme throughout the research project, both in the survey and in focus-group and individual interviews the author conducted with NA students. There was a palpable sense that newer officers were less committed to policing as a career and were less willing to “earn” certain rights and privileges.

External barriers. Factors and forces external to respondents’ agencies were identified as impediments to the expansion of effective leadership. Executive, legislative and judicial bodies hold some level of control over agency operations; such “[o]utside forces, e.g. District atty’s office, A.G.’s office weighing in and forcing bad decisions on us [. . .] politician don’t help either – in many cases” (Unit Head, major state agency). Most police executives are elected or serve at the pleasure of an elected official. Respondents felt this situation caused top executives to be highly responsive to individuals or groups (elected bodies or the electorate itself), which might dismiss or opt not to reappoint the executive. Top leaders are generally “dependent upon the elected officials of the municipality in which they work” (Deputy Chief, large municipal agency) to maintain their employment. This dependence was seen as generating undo concern among executives toward local political influence and community pressures. Respondents indicated external bodies and constituents might not always be concerned with leadership development, particularly efforts believed to consume appreciable time and/or resources. Innovative strategies, such as implementing development programs or pushing for more effective (and perhaps costly) ways to identify those individuals most qualified to serve as formal leaders might not be fully valued by an executive’s “boss.” There may be political pressure “on short-term results instead of long-term qualitative development of organization and people” (Chief inspector, mid-size agency).

Agencies also faced external barriers when labor organizations were involved in representing some members of the work force. Such groups might oppose promotional

Developing effective

leadership

249

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

selection criteria or procedures that were viewed as putting some individuals at a disadvantage. Though promotional testing via conventional processes (i.e. knowledge of agency policy) might be of questionable validity, they generate fewer concerns of bias that might aggravate labor organizations. An agency seeking to implement a leadership development program might hope to save costs by only including those officers deemed most promising as potential leaders. This situation, while fiscally responsible, generates concerns for labor groups as it might be interpreted that only some employees are being given access to a “fast track” to promotion.

Failure to lead. Effective leadership begets effective leadership. Agencies and executives that suffered a deficiency of effective practices by those in the top formal positions of authority struggled to instill and cultivate traditions of effective leadership. Policing has a strong tradition of supervisors favoring management over leadership. Being unwillingness to delegate authority, to allow others to make decisions, and to involve others in the decision making process stifled the emergence of leadership potential among subordinate officers. This was a failure to lead in the truest sense and posed a significant barrier to the development of leadership behaviors because new officers had neither the chance to experience being a leader nor the opportunity to observe how effective leaders performed their duties. Leadership experience and mentoring, identified in the previous section, did not take place when agency executives failed to recognize the value of these processes.

In some instances this failure to lead was accidental, such as when supervisors did not recognize they were engaging in management instead of leadership. Some ranking officers might only understand management as a supervisory style. Fear of litigation and the desire to ensure subordinate accountability could push supervisors to take a controlling, domineering, or micro-management approach to their responsibilities and authorities. This situation was further exacerbated when supervisors were perceived as being “out of touch” with front line personnel, the duties they performed, and the challenges they encountered on a routine basis. A commanding officer from a major municipal agency noted the greatest challenge to the emergence of effective leadership is “interference from the upper echelon of the department that may be out of touch with the way that things actually are” on the streets.

For other supervisors, engaging in non-leadership was a conscious choice. A Captain in a large state agency noted that “ineffective leaders [are] not willing to train those below them in fear of being surpassed or exposed as an ineffective leader.” Rather than improving an organization by raising the caliber of skills and performances exhibited by officers, supervisors using this approach were more concerned with restricting the accomplishments of subordinates. Finally, supervisors in key positions to implement more systemic efforts to develop leadership within an agency have simply failed to recognize the need for or value of such an initiative. A Captain from a medium municipal agency observed the “lack of interest by the ‘power that be’ to actively cultivate the leadership skill in those that are identified as having leadership qualities” significantly hampers the development process. Ineffective leaders frequently fail to show due concern the future of the organization, including “succession planning”.

Individual barriers and short-comings Respondents often framed the barriers to effective leadership as a set of circumstances inherent within police organizations, the police profession, and the acts and omissions

PIJPSM 32,2

250

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

of their own supervisors. The ability to engage in effective leadership, however, was also framed as a function of the personal limitations and shortcomings of individuals in formal positions of authority. Respondents were asked to discuss the impediments to their own ability to be a more effective leader. This inquiry was based on the belief that even an effective leader might be able to enhance the quality of their performance; a key to such an enhancement was to first recognize one’s own limitations. The majority of respondents identified personal traits and habits that served to inhibit their efficacy as a leader, though a small proportion felt nothing prevented them from exhibiting effective leadership behaviors.

Nothing. Those reporting there were no barriers to their own leadership efficacy (one-sixth of respondents) might initially be presumed to be responding out of arrogance and self-aggrandizement. On the contrary, respondents reporting that nothing prevented them from being a more effective leadership seemed to be indicating they worked in a supportive environment that provided the structure, authority, and resources necessary to succeed as a leader. “I have all the support and latitude I need based on my position” (Assistant Chief, major state agency). “I do not feel that I am being prevented and if so, it would be at my own doing” (Captain, medium municipal agency). In effect, respondents in this group were indicating their work environment provided the tools for successful leadership behaviors. Any individual failures were just that – a failure on the part of a leader to capitalize on the opportunities they were provided. A Captain from a medium municipal agency insightfully expressed this notion, writing “[t]he obstacles are my own- either self made or perceived. No one has the ability to prevent another’s ability to be an effective leader” (Captain, medium municipal agency). Respondents indicating nothing prevented them from engaging in effective leadership practices were contending that too many supervisors sought to blame someone and/or something else for their own short-comings and inadequacies; they believed true leaders recognized they were their own biggest barrier to success.

Demands of job. Most participants did report some combination of barriers prevented them from maximizing their efficacy[10]. Police officers, particularly those assigned to work motorized patrol, work in geographically diffuse areas and are highly mobile. Despite the advent of the two-way radio, the automobile, and more recent innovations in wireless communications, most police work is done with minimal direct supervision. This is particularly true in smaller agencies (where a supervisor may not always be working), as well as county and state agencies (where officers cover much larger patrol areas, creating spatial distances from supervisors and peers)[11]. Likewise, in larger agencies leadership can be a challenge for top executives because of the number of personnel and the number of locations in which they work.

Community policing research often noted officers indicated the daily and hourly demands of policing made it difficult to find the time engage in proactive and problem solving initiatives (Schafer, 2001; Sadd and Grinc, 1996). Respondents in this research effort offered parallel perspectives on their capacity to engage in effective leadership (identified by one-quarter of respondents). An Assistant Director of a mid-size state police agency lamented “[t]he constraints imposed by outside influence [and] the ‘daily grind’ of administrative tasks.” A Captain from a mid-size municipal agency remarked there was “not enough staffing to allow me to have the time to work at being a good leader.” An Inspector from a mid-size international federal agency responded that leaders “have to go to too many meetings, they are so tied up that they don’t have enough

Developing effective

leadership

251

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

time to leadership.” Though there was certainly not unanimity in the belief that time and demands prevented effective leadership, this perspective is of interest because it casts leadership as a process requiring time commitment and conscious effort.

Lack of support and authority. Perhaps, the most common factor respondents identified as preventing their efficacy as leaders related with the support and authority (or lack thereof) provided by their own supervisors and their employing agency (mentioned by one-third of respondents). The average NA student was a mid- to late-career first-line or mid-level supervisor; top executives were less prevalent[12]. Respondents indicated these top executives often interfered with or prevented their efforts to be effective leaders. A Lieutenant in a small agency expressed this matter in a simple fashion, noting effective leadership was prevented by “[t]he bosses above me.” The Chief Investigator for another small agency wrote “[m]y chief prevents the chain of command from functioning properly. He does not allow the senior officers to lead.” A Lieutenant from a large international federal agency observed top executives “do not want to listen to anyone else”, particularly supervisors of lower rank. In such situations, respondents indicated they knew what changes needed to be enacted to fix problems within the agency, but lacked the authority to implement such corrections. The solutions were evident to the respondent, but for various reasons those with the authority to make corrections were unwilling to do so.

Perceived reluctance on the part of top executives to allow effective leadership practices may reflect alternative views of what effective leadership means. A Captain in a medium municipal agency noted their supervisors did “not view leading in the ways I have described.” In such a situation, the perceived lack of support by top executives may not have reflected indifference toward effective leadership; rather it might have reflected differing views on that concept’s definition and how it was best placed into operation. Other respondents identifying top leaders as a barrier to their own efficacy cast the former as operating out of fear and/or jealousy. A lieutenant from a mid-size municipal agency wrote “[t]he better I am at being a leader, the more I am respected by my employees, the more my boss becomes jealous and takes it out on me and the people who work for me.” An Assistant Special Agent in Charge of a major national agency noted supervisors “that are not effective leaders are threatened by persons who are effective leaders.” The former would presumably seek to interfere with the efficacy of the latter to preserve their power and position.

Organizational tradition and culture. As previously noted, policing has a rich history of tradition and culture, including a proclivity toward entrenched views on how various matters ought to be handled (indicated here by one-sixth of respondents). Historically, leadership development has been a limited process. Leaders were expected to either bring requisite skills to the job or acquire those skills (presumably through osmosis) in the course of performing their duties. A Deputy Chief from a medium municipal agency expressed how these entrenched beliefs might translate into the realm of leadership, writing those with the authority to improve the efficacy of an agency’s leaders tend to respond “‘We’ve always done it this way’ [i.e. eschewing formal leadership development]. Not willing to change.” Innovation in policing is often further constrained by informal and organization politics. “Many decisions that must be made for the good of the public and the dept. are refused by the command because they are unpopular. Politics inhibit the implementation of effective practices” (Lieutenant, major municipal agency).

PIJPSM 32,2

252

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Self. Respondents were frequently candid in noting their own personal limitations impeded their efficacy as a leader (reported by one-quarter of respondents). A Captain from a small municipal agency reflected that “[s]ome attributes of my personality may inhibit me from being a more effective leader in all situations.” An Assistant Chief in a small municipal agency noted “I often find myself failing to delegate enough to others.” A Lieutenant from a small municipal agency indicated a significant barrier they faced was their inability “to be more personable.” Respondents providing these types of comments reflected an awareness of the traits and habits of effective leaders and were able to reflexively recognize how they failed to embody some of these behaviors. Age and supervisory experience were also commonly identified individual factors inhibiting leadership efficacy. A recently promoted Sergeant from a large state agency responded that “I only have 11 years in my dept and I’m 32 years old. I supervise 20 other[s] [. . .] I think my tenure and age hurts my credibility because I have less time and I’m younger than my subordinates.” A newly promoted Sergeant from a small municipal agency wrote that “I tend to accept the way things have always been. I need to become more of a risk taker to initiate changes.” A Lieutenant from a medium state agency indicated being restricted by “my own level of confidence. Not believing 100 percent in myself. If you don’t have confidence in yourself you will not be very convincing when dealing with your peers.”

Discussion These research findings offer important implications to police leaders and scholars. The findings provide insights into the experiences, perceptions, and beliefs of police supervisors, but do not validate any specific leadership development program or initiative. Respondents presumably based their answers on what they believe has helped them achieve professional success, as well as perceptions of what would have helped them achieve earlier or greater success. They suggest possible paths for improving leadership development in policing, while providing a framework for more rigorous validation of such efforts. The findings suggest that leadership development is a challenge in agencies of many types, sizes, and locales, confirming anecdotal evidence to that effect (Adlam, 2002; Haberfeld, 2006). Leadership development was viewed as a process best achieved through a complementary mix of education reinforced by practical application with constructive feedback. In many ways, the process respondents described would be akin to the pre-service and field training programs many new officers complete. Basic ideas would be communicated through readings, lectures, and discussions. These ideas might then put into practice in applied settings with observation and evaluation by a peer recognized for her/his acumen with the skill set at hand. As early success is achieved, greater levels of responsibility and autonomy could be provided to build confidence, competencies, and competence.

The development of effective leadership was framed as being limited by a host of barriers, including finite resources, structural obstacles, cultural resistance, external influences, agency politics, and a failure of leadership on the part of existing police supervisors. The latter point reinforced recent inquiry into the influence of supervisory style on patrol officer behavior, which has validated that “supervisors must lead by example” (Engel, 2002, p. 62; Jermier and Berkes, 1979; Kelloway et al., 2005; Rowe, 2006). Analogously, police supervisors felt leadership flourished when leaders in an agency modeled ideal conduct. This would serve as an example to workers in the agency and

Developing effective

leadership

253

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

would increase the likelihood the agency would pursue a structure and resource allocation scheme in support of effective leadership and its development. Respondents further reported that their individual efforts to be more effective leaders were stymied by the demands of their job, a lack of support from their supervisors and peers, the traditions and politics within their agency, and their own personal limitations.

The findings reinforce that which we intuitively want to believe about leadership development, but that is difficult to empirically validate. Leadership development was framed as involving a long-view; the profession must start with officers earlier in their career, expose them to a broad range of training and educational experiences, encourage on-going learning, provide them with opportunities to learn through application, provide them with positive role models, and provide mentorship throughout the process (Gardner, 1990; Kouzes and Posner, 2002; Yukl, 2002). Would such a program actually enhance the quality of leadership in an agency (Adlam, 2002)? Would any achieved benefit justify the potential fiscal and personnel costs of this approach? Answering such questions would invoke some methodological challenges, but the process would not be insurmountable and is a needed aspect of policing scholarship (House and Aditya, 1997; House and Podsakoff, 1994; Mastrofski, 2006). Little is known about “what works” in leadership development, in part because many initiatives emerge out of the corporate sector, which worries less about validating outcomes. When such development initiatives have been applied within the public sector there have been few attempts to systematically validate outcomes. Further, the corporate nature of much leadership knowledge and development (Bass, 1990; Ruderman et al., 1990) means that purveyors of such ideas and programs have fiscal interests that may not encourage rigorous testing of outcomes for participants. If developmental initiatives are to be attempted in public sector organizations it is imperative they be subject to assessment to ensure desired outcomes are realized.

How much of the leadership development process needs to be police-specific? Can we learn from leadership based on other disciplines/contexts (Hooijberg et al., 1997)? Do theories, examples, exercises, and instructors need to be police-specific, or do materials developed for corporate applications translate reasonably well into policing contexts? Is there a preferred model of police leadership or do situational and contextual factors shape the methods leaders use to achieve desired outcomes (Engel, 2001; Kingshott, 2006)? Rowe’s (2006) research in the UK suggests the culture of policing may prefer training and knowledge generated specifically within policing contexts. Whether leadership in policing is truly different than leadership in other contexts or not (Blair, 2003), there is a strong belief the pressures and constraints in policing make this process unique. Customization may be less significant as leaders are developed for top positions within their organization. The British model of leadership development sees chief constables completing a series of programs that become more like an MBA curriculum at each successive level (Adlam and Villiers, 2003). Whether this approach is as appropriate in American policing (where most agencies are considerably smaller, diluting some of the responsibilities of chief executives) is unclear.

The process of enhancing the overall quality of police leadership, both leadership formally provided by ranking personnel and informally desired from all officers, is not as simple as installing a validated developmental initiative. Respondents highlighted myriad challenges internal and external to agencies, as well as limitations that may be

PIJPSM 32,2

254

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

found within individual personnel. Simply realizing the need for developmental efforts and having the wisdom to implement such a program is a significant initial obstacle that must be negotiated. Creating the time and securing the resources to sustain such efforts is difficult, particularly given the fragmented nature of American policing; small agencies rarely enjoy assets to support a project likely to be viewed as elective. Further, various internal, external, and cultural factors inherent in the policing profession may impede the practice of effective leadership once it has been developed.

The findings reported in this paper are not without limitations. The sample of participants, while including supervisors from organizations diverse in size, location, scope, and mission, cannot be statistically validated as representative. The respondents disclosed self-reported information, resulting in the normal questions of validity arising in such situations. Further, the research was predicated on the belief respondents had a basic understanding of how to cultivate and encourage effective leadership practices among supervisors and front-line personnel. Such a presumption may not, in fact, be valid across participants. Because American policing is provincial in nature and agency operations often-times reflect parochial outlooks on the profession, some agencies lack effective leadership to such an extent that members of that organization may not have a realistic understanding of how to develop leadership abilities. Despite these limitations, the findings offer provisional insights into the identified aspects of police leadership and its development.

The results of this study, considered in light of extant literature on police leadership, leads to several subsequent questions that, to date, remain unanswered. Is there a definition of “effective leadership” the policing community would generally agree upon? Do we know enough about effective leadership to measure potentiality or ability?[13] How do we overcome resistance to change and the human impulse to be jealously of granting others opportunities we did not enjoy (Engel, 2002; Engel and Worden, 2003; Wycoff and Skogan, 1994b)? How do we create developmental programs, particularly in agencies with limited resources? How do we create a culture that value leadership development? When should agencies seek to develop leaders given finite resources? Should programs be open to all; should agencies use finite resources to involve officers they know are unlikely to receive a promotion or advance in their careers? Even if effective leadership exists, how can an agency overcome the various structural, cultural, and external barriers that work to restrict effective practices? To be sure, this research raises many questions and provides few definitive answers (House and Aditya, 1997).

Participants in this project frequently cast higher ranking officials (and occasionally other community leaders) as key in shaping leadership development and individual efficacy (Kelloway et al., 2005). These officials could set a positive tone, exhibit positive leadership behaviors, ensure developmental programs were in place, and maximize the opportunities for effective leaders to display effective leadership. Alternatively, they could operate out of fear or indifference, infringing on the efforts of subordinate supervisors to engage in effective leadership practices. Though there may not be a single model for being an effective leader, one of the key ways to limit a leader’s efficacy and impact was to deny authority and subvert their efforts. The challenge for police practitioners, executives, policy makers, and scholars is to advance the profession by beginning to seek out answers and better practices than have often been utilized in the past.

Developing effective

leadership

255

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Notes

1. Klinger (2004) provides one of the best contemporary commentaries on the role of environment and organization in shaping policing outcomes. His insightful essay also illustrates how contemporary scholarship has overlooked the importance of these forces.

2. The IACP developed the West Point materials with the support of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. The original materials were developed by retired Brigadier General Howard Prince II for use at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. Materials were modified in consultation with police officers from across the USA, resulting in a 700 page volume.

3. Informative summaries of positive, negative, neutral, and missing research evidence on a range of leadership development efforts may be found in the writings of Bass (1990, pp. 807-56) as well as Ruderman et al. (1990).

4. The total number of participating officers is based on first day counts provided by the FBI Academy.

5. Respondents reported sworn agency size using fixed categories. For the purpose of this analysis agency size was categorized as small (0-50), medium (51-100), mid-size (101-250), large (251-1,000), and major (1,001 or more).

6. Respondents selected from the following classifications: municipal/city, county, state, nation, or other.

7. Though the NA is intended for those with supervisory experience, in rare cases agencies were allowed to send non-supervisory personnel. Three respondents reported zero years of supervisory experience.

8. One item utilized in this study asked supervisors to assess how often they observed effective leadership practices within their agency. Though a handful of respondents indicated they observed effective leadership practices routinely, the most common response was to frame effective leadership as variable quality. Participants reported experiencing both effective and ineffective leadership on a routine basis.

9. This required agencies to have clearly established goals, objectives, policies, and procedures so officers were aware of the expectations and parameters associated with the job. This might seem self-evident, however respondents indicated it could be presumed in all agencies. A Major from a large municipal agency lamented the “[l]ack of consistency by mangers. Officers don’t always get the same message.”

10. Respondents expressed the belief education and training were central to the development of effective leaders, though only a handful indicated they personally lacked the education and/or training to be an effective leader. Perhaps this was a function of the prior experiences of NA participants, though it had been expected that education and training would have been identified more often.

11. Such notions reflect the underlying assumption that leadership can only be exhibited by supervisory personnel (as opposed to the leadership behaviors that might be displayed by a peer) and/or that effective supervision requires direct proximity between supervisors and subordinates.

12. Admission and selection processes do not prevent top executives from attending the NA. The constraints and demands of being a chief, sheriff, or executive officer, however, made it difficult to separate from an agency for ten weeks to attend the program. Further, in some cases an agency’s top executives may have attended the NA earlier in her/his career.

13. Reiner (1998) provides an articulate overview of the need for greater insights into performance assessment processes for individual officers. Parallel questions and rationales could be proffered when considering the leadership practices of individual supervisors and/or promotional candidates.

PIJPSM 32,2

256

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

References

Adlam, R. (2002), “Governmental rationalities in police leadership: an essay exploring some of the ‘deep structure’ in police leadership praxis”, Policing and Society, Vol. 12, pp. 15-36.

Adlam, R. and Villiers, P. (Eds) (2003), “Police leadership in the twenty-first century: philosophy”, Waterside Press, Winchester.

Allen, D. (1982), “Police supervision on the street: an analysis of supervisor/officer interaction during the shift”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, pp. 91-109.

Allen, D. and Maxfield, M. (1983), “Judging police performance: views and behavior of patrol officers”, in Bennett, R. (Ed.), Police at Work: Policy Issues and Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 65-86.

Anderson, T.D., Gisborne, K. and Holliday, P. (2006), Every Officer is a Leader, 2nd ed., Trafford Publishing, Victoria.

Baker, T.E. (2000), Effective Police Leadership, Looseleaf Law Publications, Flushing, NY.

Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.

Berg, B.L. (2001), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Allyn & Bacon, Boston, MA.

Bittner, E. (1983), “Legitimacy and workmanship: introduction to control in the police organization”, in Punch, M. (Ed.), Control in the Police Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-11.

Blair, I. (2003), “Leadership that learns”, in Adlam, R. and Villiers, P. (Eds), Police Leadership in the Twenty-First Century: Philosophy, Doctrine and Developments, Waterside Press, Winchester, pp. 169-73.

Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1993), “Donut shops and speed traps: evaluating models of supervision on police behavior”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37, pp. 555-81.

Brewer, N., Wilson, C. and Beck, K. (1994), “Supervisory behavior and team performance among police patrol sergeants”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 69-78.

Brown, M.K. (1988), Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

Buerger, M. (2000), “Reenvision police, reinvigorating policing: a response to Thomas Cowper”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 451-64.

Buzawa, E. (1984), “Determining patrol officer job satisfaction: the role of selected demographic and job-specific attitudes”, Criminology, Vol. 22, pp. 61-84.

Cowper, T.J. (2000), “The myth of the ‘military model’ of leadership in law enforcement”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 228-46.

Crank, J.P. (2004), Understanding Police Culture, 2nd ed., Anderson, Cincinnati, OH.

Densten, I.L. (2003), “Senior police leadership: does rank matter?”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 26, pp. 400-18.

Engel, R.S. (2000), “The effects of supervisory styles on patrol officer behavior”, Police Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 262-93.

Engel, R.S. (2001), “Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29, pp. 341-55.

Engel, R.S. (2002), “Patrol officer supervision in the community policing era”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 30, pp. 51-64.

Developing effective

leadership

257

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Engel, R.S. and Worden, R.E. (2003), “Police officers’ attitudes, behavior, and supervisory influences: an analysis of problem solving”, Criminology, Vol. 4, pp. 131-66.

Gardner, J.W. (1990), On Leadership, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Greene, J.R. (1998), “Evaluating planned change strategies in modern law enforcement: implementing community-based policing”, in Brodeur, J.P. (Ed.), How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp. 141-60.

Guyot, D. (1975), “Bending granite: attempts to change the rank structure of American police departments”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 7, pp. 253-84.

Haberfeld, M.R. (2006), Police Leadership, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (2008), Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading Human Resources, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J.G. and Dodge, G.E. (1997), “Leadership complexity and development of the Leaderplex model”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 375-408.

Hoover, L.T. and Mader, E.T. (1990), “Attitudes of police chiefs toward private sector management principles”, American Journal of Police, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 25-37.

House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), “The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23, pp. 409-73.

House, R.J. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1994), “Leadership effectiveness: past perspectives and future directions for research”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-82.

Huberts, L.W.J.C., Kaptein, M. and Lasthuizen, K. (2007), “A study of the impact of three leadership styles on integrity violations committed by police officers”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30, pp. 587-607.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (n.d.), Leadership in Police Organizations, McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.

Jermier, J.M. and Berkes, L.J. (1979), “Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: a closer look at the quasi-military model”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, pp. 1-23.

Kappeler, V.E., Sluder, R.D. and Alpert, G.P. (1998), Forces of Deviance, 2nd ed., Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL.

Kelloway, E.K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L. and Barling, J. (2005), “Poor leadership”, in Barling, J., Kelloway, E.K. and Frone, M.R. (Eds), Handbook of Work Stress, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 89-112.

Kingshott, B.F. (2006), “The role of management and leadership within the context of police service delivery”, Criminal Justice Studies, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 121-37.

Klinger, D.A. (2004), “Environment and organization: reviving a perspective on the police”, The Annals, Vol. 593, pp. 119-36.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Kuykendall, J.L. (1977), “Police leadership: an analysis of executive styles”, Criminal Justice Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 89-100.

Kuykendall, J.L. and Unsinger, P.C. (1982), “The leadership styles of police managers”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, pp. 311-21.

Lee, T.W. (1999), Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

PIJPSM 32,2

258

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

London, M., Smither, J.W. and Diamante, T. (2007), “Best practices in leadership assessment”, in Conger, J.A. and Riggio, R.E. (Eds), The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next Generation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 41-63.

Lundman, R. (1979), “Organizational norms and police discretion: an observational study of police work with traffic law violators”, Criminology, Vol. 17, pp. 159-71.

McCall, M.W. Jr and Hollenbeck, G.P. (2007), “Getting leader development right: competence not competencies”, in Conger, J.A. and Riggio, R.E. (Eds), The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next Generation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 87-106.

Maguire, E.R. (2003), Organizational Structure in American Police Agencies, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

Mastrofski, S.D. (1998), “Community policing and police organization structure”, in Brodeur, J.P. (Ed.), How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp. 161-89.

Mastrofski, S.D. (2006), “Police organization and management issues for the next decade”, paper presented to the NIJ Police Research Planning Workshop, Washington, DC, November.

Mastrofski, S.M., Ritti, R.R. and Snipes, J.B. (1994), “Expectancy theory and police productivity in DUI enforcement”, Law & Society Review, Vol. 28, pp. 113-48.

Meese, E. and Ortmeier, P.J. (2004), Leadership, Ethics, and Policing: Challenges for the 21st Century, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Muir, W.K. Jr (1977), Police: Street Corner Politicians, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

National Research Council (2004), “Fairness and effectiveness in policing: the evidence, committee to review research on police policy and practices”, in Skogan, W. and Frydl, K. (Eds), Committee on Law and Justice, Division on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

O’Hara, P. (2005), Why Law Enforcement Organizations Fail, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992), Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector, Plume Book, New York, NY.

Reese, R. (2005), Leadership in the LAPD: Walking the Tightrope, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, NC.

Reiner, R. (1998), “Process or product? Problems of assessing individual police performance”, in Brodeur, J.P. (Ed.), How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Police Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC, pp. 55-72.

Reiss, A.J. Jr (1971), The Police and the Public, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983), Two Cultures of Policing: Street Cops and Management Cops, Transaction Books, New York, NY.

Rowe, M. (2006), “Following the leader: front-line narratives on police leadership”, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 29, pp. 757-67.

Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. and McCauley, C.D. (1990), “Assessing opportunities for leadership development”, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 547-62.

Sadd, S. and Grinc, R. (1996), Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-oriented Policing in Eight Cities, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.

Schafer, J.A. (2001), Community Policing: The Challenges of Successful Organizational Change, LFB Scholarly Publishing, New York, NY.

Developing effective

leadership

259

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

Schafer, J.A. (2002), “The challenge of effective organizational change: lessons learned in community-policing implementation”, in Morash, M. and Ford, J.K. (Eds), The Move to Community Policing: Making Change Happen, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 243-63.

Smith, D. (1984), “The organizational context of legal control”, Criminology, Vol. 22, pp. 19-38.

Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

Sutherland, M.D. and Reuss-Ianni, E. (1992), “Leadership and management”, in Cordner, G.W. and Hale, D.C. (Eds), What Works in Policing? Operations and Administration Examined, Anderson, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 157-77.

Trojanowicz, R.C. (1980), The Environment of the First-line Police Supervisor, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Van Maanen, J. (1983), “The boss: first-line supervision in an American police agency”, in Punch, M. (Ed.), Control in the Police Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 275-317.

Van Maanen, J. (1984), “Making rank: becoming an American police sergeant”, Urban Life, Vol. 13, pp. 155-76.

Wilson, J.Q. (1968), Varieties of Police Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Witte, J.H., Travis, L.F. and Langworthy, R.H. (1990), “Participatory management in law enforcement: police officer, supervisor and administrator perceptions”, American Journal of Police, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-23.

Wycoff, M.A. and Skogan, W.G. (1994a), “Community policing in Madison: an analysis of implementation and impact”, in Rosenbaum, D.P. (Ed.), The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 75-91.

Wycoff, M.A. and Skogan, W.G. (1994b), “The effect of a community policing management style on officers’ attitudes”, Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 40, pp. 371-83.

Yukl, G. (2002), Leadership in Organizations, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Corresponding author Joseph A. Schafer can be contacted at: [email protected]

PIJPSM 32,2

260

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

This article has been cited by:

1. Doris Masal, Rick Vogel. 2016. Leadership, Use of Performance Information, and Job Satisfaction: Evidence From Police Services. International Public Management Journal 19:2, 208-234. [CrossRef]

2. S. Marlon Gayadeen Department of Criminal Justice, SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, New York, USA Scott W. Phillips Department of Criminal Justice, SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, New York, USA . 2016. Donut time: the use of humor across the police work environment. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 5:1, 44-59. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

3. Victoria Herrington. 2015. Assessing the impact of public safety leader development in Australasia. Policing and Society 1-15. [CrossRef]

4. Scott W. Phillips. 2015. The attitudes and goals of police supervisors: results from a national sample. Police Practice and Research 16:5, 364-377. [CrossRef]

5. Doris Masal Deaprtment of Public Management & Public Policy, Zeppelin University, Friedrichshafen, Germany . 2015. Shared and transformational leadership in the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 38:1, 40-55. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

6. Saracha Chatthong, Manaswas Kovitaya, Mingkwan Kongjaroen. 2014. The Elements of a Learning Model to Enhance Service Mind of Thai Police Officer. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152, 880-888. [CrossRef]

7. Amr Swid School of Management, New York Institute of Technology, New York, New York, USA . 2014. Police members perception of their leaders’ leadership style and its implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37:3, 579-595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Mary B. Sarver Department of Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Women's Studies, University of South Carolina Upstate, Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA Holly Miller College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, USA . 2014. Police chief leadership: styles and effectiveness. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 37:1, 126-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. M. Pearson-Goff, V. Herrington. 2014. Police Leadership: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Policing 8:1, 14-26. [CrossRef]

10. Police Value Shop Configuration 219-240. [CrossRef] 11. Geoff DeanSchool of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia

Petter GottschalkBI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway. 2013. Police leadership roles: empirical study of management attitudes. International Journal of Law and Management 55:4, 304-317. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

12. Stephen A. BishoppUniversity of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas, USA. 2013. An evaluation of the promotional processes in a large Texas metropolitan police department. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 36:1, 51-69. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. Li‐Ren YangDepartment of Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan Hsiu‐Feng YenDepartment of Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan Yu‐Fu ChiangDepartment of Business Administration, Tamkang University, New Taipei City, Taiwan. 2012. A framework for assessing impacts of leadership competency on police project performance. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 35:3, 528-550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Petter Gottschalk, Rune Glomseth. 2012. Attitudes of police managers to different leadership roles in their jobs: An empirical study in Norway. Journal of Leadership Studies 6:1, 23-29. [CrossRef]

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )

15. James Hogan, Craig Bennell, Alyssa Taylor. 2011. The Challenges of Moving into Middle Management: Responses from Police Officers. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 26:2, 100-111. [CrossRef]

16. Cathrine FilstadBI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway Petter GottschalkBI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway. 2011. Becoming a learning organization. The Learning Organization 18:6, 486-500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. Petter GottschalkNorwegian School of Management, Oslo, Norway. 2011. Management challenges in law enforcement: the case of police misconduct and crime. International Journal of Law and Management 53:3, 169-181. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

18. Rune Glomseth, Petter Gottschalk, Åse Storhaug Hole. 2011. Professional values in knowledge organisations: the case of police districts. International Journal of Police Science & Management 13:1, 87-102. [CrossRef]

19. Joseph A. SchaferDepartment of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA. 2010. Effective leaders and leadership in policing: traits, assessment, development, and expansion. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 33:4, 644-663. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

D ow

nl oa

de d

by U

ni ve

rs it

y of

M ar

yl an

d U

ni ve

rs it

y C

ol le

ge U

M U

C A

t 15

:1 4

14 F

eb ru

ar y

20 17

( P

T )