DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO POLICE LEADERSHIP

Change can be complicated and taxing.  Some changes can be projected, but some come too quick to be prepared.  Management styles and behaviors form a police organization’s culture.  Culture is seen to be important because it supports or hinders policies, provides value, influences character, establishes consistency and direction, steers and forms conduct, and influences organization success (Florida Department of Law Enforcement [FDLE], 2010).  Thomas (2001) wrote, “Our natural reaction to change, even in the best circumstances, is to resist.  The overwhelming majority of people naturally and fervently resist change either in their personal lives or in the workplace.  We like our ‘comfort zone’.”

            There are a number of arguments for resisting change and implementing change.  Adlam & Villiers (2003); Franz and Jones (1987) believe that most research equates police leadership with an archaic militaristic style.  Franz and Jones (1987) argue that the militaristic style hinders communication between leaders and officers (as cited in Smith, 2009).

This causes problems with the problem-solving capabilities of police organizations; how they confront a hastily shifting world; and how they support the essential practice of modernization in a setting in which the population and topography of everyday policing is changing rapidly (Smith, 2009).  Hisrich & Peters (1992) asserted police leadership does not support ingenuity, flexibility or autonomy due to leadership always enforcing the philosophy of do what you are told, do not make mistakes, and do not take risks (as cited in Smith).  Canter (2000) coined the term ‘destructive organizational psychology’ which means police organizations continue an outdated system that primes certain officers within the organization to become leaders instead of promoting those who have consistently demonstrated the overall qualities of a progressive leader.  Police leaders select their future leaders early in their careers and usually do not accept the ones that take time to develop over a longer period of time which promotes the same antiquated police culture (as cited in Smith).  Silvestri (2007) emphasized the rank structure has evolved over many decades and has acted as a right of passage for future leaders to carry on the antiquated missions of the organization.  Those officers obtaining rank view it as a status symbol.  McLaughlin & Murji (1985) contended that if the rank structure was terminated, officers would believe it to be an unproductive step and a loss of power (as cited in Silvestri, 2007). Presently, police organizations are not prepared to embrace an innovative participatory style of management because of its unwillingness to share information with anyone and rank further complicates it (Silvestri).  Wuestewald & Steinheider (2006) pointed out that since police leadership is entwined in a traditional hierarchical culture it discourages new styles of shared leadership because these leaders either do not trust officers or have never been introduced to adaptive leadership methods like, allowing interpersonal communication, coaching, and facilitation or inclusive decision-making.  This results in no change to the overall effectiveness of the organization and it remains status quo (as cited in Smith). Another aspect of fearing change is the perceived time it takes to make a decision using one of the participatory leadership styles.  Some leaders fear it would be an ineffective method of making decisions and make one believe they were an ineffective and indecisive leader (Silvestri).  Davidhizar & Cramer (2000) argued that police organizations do not want to change because their culture and structure have been one in which the leaders are male gendered.  These leaders continued to be transactional, domineering, aggressive and powerful (as cited in Thyer, 2003).  Murray, Prunckun, & Ras (2007) agreed and indicated that even with changes in masculinities and femininities in police organizations; police leadership is still a “gendered site”.  There is some research that indicates that leaders are simply against change.  They lead under the assumptions that if things are working well, why change it (FDLE, 2010).

In order for police leaders to establish themselves as being modern, visionary and innovative, they must adapt to the changes that face them.  This is accomplished by empowering people within their organizations to make decisions and stimulating collaboration (Wuestewald & Steinheider).  Adebayo (2004) wrote:

In order to react effectively to changes in society’s demographic composition, education, and independent ideals, the leadership structure of the police must be seen to be flexible enough to accommodate such changes and also ensure the removal of unnecessary bureaucratic delays in the entire operation of the police. 

The autocratic style of leadership that consisted mostly of less educated men in the past will not suffice in this timeframe because the workforce has changed (Adebayo, 2004). 

Smith (2009) declared that modern day leaders with advanced education have begun embracing the change from the traditional promotional processes to elevating new leaders based upon their education and roles.  Education presents more opportunity for change within the police organization by allowing these educated officers to broaden their knowledge, and question and alter assessments in how services are provided. 

Silvestri (2007) claimed that police leadership possibly changed because women challenged their male counterparts for leadership roles; thusly changing the organizational culture (as cited in Murray et al, 2007).  Women have been incorporated in the police culture for over 30 years.  Eliminating some of these male gendered biases has resulted in a flatter structure and involved an empowering and participative leadership.  The changes in leadership styles have directly benefited the pubic through community and problem-oriented policing.  Women leaders are seen to be more transformational, seeking to open up communication and the decision-making process.  As more and more women become leaders within the police organization it will shake the foundation of the commanding and controlling style of leadership to one of transformation (Silvestri). 

Some research indicates that leaders must change because of generational issues.  At the present, there are four main generational groups that are active in the workplace: Veterans, Baby Boomers, Generation X and Y.  Most of the Veteran generation has either retired from leadership roles or have come back from retirement in a civilian type position.  Presently, the Baby Boomers are the generation that is mainly in control.  However, the Baby Boomers are beginning to retire and this will force the other two generations into leadership roles and that will require an organizational shift.  If the present economic trend continues all of these generations may continue to work together for some time and they all need to know how to interact.  In order to affect positive change, all of these generations will have to respect and learn from each other.  Leaders will need to emphasize flexibility, training, and open communication between all generational groups throughout the organization (FDLE, 2010). 

Steinheider &Wuestewald (2008) proffered that change in police leadership and the organizational structure was connected to the increased adoption of unions.  In the past, leaders did not consult union leaders in the decision-making process.  Progressive leaders foster improved work conditions, productivity, service delivery and increased organizational commitment when including union leaders in the policy process.

Smith (2009) argued that change in police leadership was birthed when police leaders began the use of teams to tackle problems and projects.  The adoption of a team or participative concept alludes to some of the characteristics that are consistent in the transformational style of leadership.  The remuneration of allowing officers to participate in the team concept while working on projects and problems has made them more flexible and adaptable.

Thomas (2001) emphasized three mistakes to avoid if effective change is going to last.  The first mistake leaders make before implementing change is not including input from those the change will affect.  Leaders fail again by not spending enough time on stimulating and persuading employees that change will be beneficial.  Lastly, leaders have to model the way and promote the change.  If leaders avoid these mistakes it makes the change process less frustrating and stressful.