Skip to main content

MY CONCLUSION ON LEADERSHIP


Accountable and suitable leadership is essential to the success of any organization (Spinelli, 2006).  Murphy & Drodge (2003) claimed that a leader should be ethical, grounded in the mission of the organization, and is emotionally engaged with employees.  Ginger (2004) pointed out six ‘Golden Rules’ for the modern police leader to follow: 
Service to employees and the public, unselfishness, calculated awareness (sensitivity to the wider social, cultural, political and business environments within which the police service operates), support (subordinates and the pubic), professional excellence and endurance with integrity.
Bass (1997) suggested that the old standards of job-centered or employee-centered leadership and autocratic or democratic leadership and related exchange theories of leadership overlooked the effects of the leader-employee relations of sharing a vision, representation and sacrifice.    Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs indicated a person needs to have their physiological needs, safety needs, love and belonging, esteem needs, and self-actualization met. Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory claims in order for a person to feel successful they have to be motivated and this is accomplished by achievement, recognition of this achievement, advancement, responsibility, and the nature of the work itself.  There are some factors that hinder being motivated and those are rules and regulations, administration, supervision, working conditions, and interpersonal values (FDLE, 2010).   Webb (2007) emphasized that leaders who focused on stimulating employees intellectually, offered rewards, had charisma and individual consideration were more apt to increase motivation and success in their employees. Transformational and transactional leadership can better allow employees to obtain their needs as outlined by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory.
Although there is a plethora of research on the topic of effective leadership styles there are some researchers that claim a cross between transformational and transactional to be best for the modern police leader.  Jogulu & Wood (2007) insisted that using both of these styles of leadership were essential in running a modern-day organization.  McGuire & Kennerly (2006) noted effective leaders should have a balance between transformational and transactional leadership that matches that of its employees.  Taylor (2009) claimed it was possible to use transformational leadership within a transactional setting such as a police organization.  Bass (1997) noted that transformational leadership could be both autocratic and democratic or even participative depending on the issues and authority. He suggested more authoritative transformational leadership would be used during policy implementation rather than work place decisions.  Additionally, a review of literature suggests that transformational leadership is complementary to and enhances transactional leadership (Spinelli).  Bass (1988) reasoned a transformational and transactional style of leadership is necessary for the continuation and development of intricate organizations (as cited in Spinelli, 2006).  Chan & Chan (2005) added that the use of these two styles of leadership could affect employee outcomes positively, but not in isolation of each other.  Lipley (2004) pointed out that leaders using both of these styles of leadership are likely to have employees that are more motivated and feel most supported.   Silvestri (2007) believed that the ability of the leader to encourage, transform, and improve employees’ sense of belongingness is a fundamental element for the improvement of a police leader. She declared that a leader who masters the use of such styles will be a champion of change. McGuire & Kennerly (2006) argued that for an organization to develop a more transformational culture it would need to hire charismatic individuals that are less transactional and who demonstrate a balance of ethics, morals and integrity. 
It is widely understood that the face of police leadership is changing and in order to be and effective leader one must embrace the changes that are before them.  Jogulu & Wood (2007) insisted that effective leadership not only institutes a clear vision for the direction of the organization, but must empower employees to accept the challenges change will bring and cooperate in accomplishing the mission.  Cohen, & Eimicke (1995) agreed that effective leadership shapes employees’ performance toward the mission of the organization (as cited in Adebayo, 2004).  Murphy (2004) contended that in order to be an effective leader one must employ behaviors that make their employees feel respected and seek out advancement opportunities for these employees.  Fiedler (1967) suggested there is not just one ideal leadership style to use for every issue, because they may have more knowledge and experience in one situation, but may not be as adept in another (as cited in Murphy, 2005).  An example of this is when the leader knows when to direct and delegate and when to coach and mentor (Menzies, 2007).  An effective leader must be open-minded and able to accept feedback and adjust their style of leadership, if necessary, to accommodate the concerns brought forward.
            In conclusion, change is necessary if a police organization wishes to keep up with the times.  The old styles of leadership must be broken and the organization should encourage and train their leaders to be more transformational.  Partnerships, power sharing, confidence and even humbleness are supplanting the influence of rank (IACP, 1999).  
This will cause the police organization to become flatter with less levels of management and fewer clear differences between them (Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2006).  Menzies (2007) proffered that police leaders who become more collaborative and interdependent in their method to solving conflicts and show concern for employees or build a collective vision will have a major emotional impact on their employees.  Taylor (2009) pointed out that leadership theories enable a person to use the correct skills in any given situation through a process of understanding, critical consideration and assessment.  A panel of Chief’s of Police from several agencies in Orange County, Florida, was asked what style of leadership was best used and the overall consensus was a mixture because one should not rely on just one style because each situation is different (FDLE, 2010). 

Comments

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:

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

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,