Skip to main content

LEADERSHIP THEORIES AND POSSIBLE CHANGES TO POLICE LEADERSHIP


INTRODUCTION
Organizations, including law enforcement agencies, require leadership.  Dependable and apposite leadership is crucial to the success of any organization (Spinelli, 2006).  Leaders aspire for change in people toward a desired goal.  Lussier & Achua (2004) insisted that leadership was a procedure that not only influenced employees, but leaders as well, to accomplish the goals of the organization through change.  Leadership entwines leaders-employees, influence, organizational objectives, change and people.  Leading involves people.  Everyone is leading someone somewhere, but the question is where and how.  In order to be a good leader one must be a good employee.  Many scholars define leadership as one who plans, directs, or guides people toward a mutual goal. Hesser (1999) noted, “Leadership has two component parts, personal and organizational.  Success, over time, demands knowledge of and commitment to both”.   Spinelli (2006) describes a successful leader as being accountable and suitable.  Leadership has been described as an influence relationship among leaders and employees who intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes (Daft, 2005).  The qualities for effective leadership and followership are the same (Daft).  The basis for good leadership is a respectable personality and unselfish service to employees and the organization (Clark, 1997).  “The best leaders are those who are deeply interested in others and can bring out the best in them” (Daft). 
Kouzes & Posner (2007) add that exemplary leadership comes from modeling the way, inspiring a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act and encouraging hearts.
Leadership in the law enforcement culture has changed over the decades, but must continue to change in order to address modern day problems.  The purpose for this paper is to examine police leadership from a historical and empirical standpoint and discuss possible theories for change.  An in-depth review of the advantages and disadvantages of two leadership theories (transactional and transformational) are explored as well as the possible outcomes of each.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:
Post a Comment
Read more

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing
2 comments
Read more

ALIGNING PEOPLE VS ORGANIZING AND STAFFING

A central feature of modern organizations is interdependence, where no one has complete autonomy, where most employees are tied to many others by their work, technology, management systems, and hierarchy. These linkages present a special challenge when organizations attempt to change. Unless many individuals line up and move together in the same direction, people will tend to fall all over one another. To executives who are overeducated in management and undereducated in leadership, the idea of getting people moving in the same direction appears to be an organizational problem. What executives need to do, however, is not organize people but align them. Managers “organize” to create human systems that can implement plans as precisely and efficiently as possible. Typically, this requires a number of potentially complex decisions. A company must choose a structure of jobs and reporting relationships, staff it with individuals suited to the jobs, provide training for those who need it,
Post a Comment
Read more