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outdated system that primes certain officers within the organization to become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.
Comments
Post a Comment