PRESENT PRACTICES IN POLICE LEADERSHIP

The literature indicates that present leadership practices are mixed throughout various police organizations. The researchers suggest that present police leadership practices are either the same as they always have been or changing.

Fyfe, et al. (1997), notes that present police leadership still resembles a military style of leadership. Silverstri (2007) agrees there is minimal verification that police leadership practices are shifting. Most police organizations continue to foster their centralized culture through the use of hierarchy and rank. This in and of itself continues to produce quasi-militaristic officers who are disciplined and follow orders within a bureaucracy.

This type of control reminds officers that they are just subordinates and have a distinct place within the organization. Silvestri (2007) emphasizes that today’s police leadership is unwilling to share information within the organization and rarely allows others to participate in decision-making opportunities. The philosophy of the twenty-first century police leader is one of being strong, assertive, competitive, performance based and unreceptive to change.

Conversely, Wuestewald & Steinheider (2006) report police leadership is progressively developing from an autocratic, centralized style that was based on wisdom, integrity and courage to that of one that embraces teamwork, involvement, and shared leadership. The researchers assert that police organizations are allowing more supervision from the bottom up and less direct control. “Modern police administration is more about ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of the police force,” claimed Skogan & Hartnett (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008). This philosophy was a by-product of the concept of community policing. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP] (1999), the use of a participatory leadership style has taken root because command and control have damaged productivity and morale.

As one can see, there are varying opinions on whether police leadership has really changed or remained the same. The literature points to different styles of leadership as being the crux for change.

Comments

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

ON BUHARI, NEW YORK TMES WROTE

Four months after seizing power, Nigeria’s military leaders appear to be suffering an erosion of popular support. Last Dec. 31, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Buhari led a group of young officers in a coup against the civilian Government of President Shehu Shagari, saying the takeover was necessary to save Nigeria, Africa’s richest and most populous nation, from economic collapse. The military intervention appeared at the time to enjoy enthusiastic support from a broad range of Nigeria’s population. Many intellectuals argued that the corruption and incompetence of the Shagari administration had made drastic action both necessary and inevitable. Traders, merchants and people in the streets welcomed the soldiers and looked forward to a quick improvement in their standard of living. Growing Disappointment Recently, however, there seems to be growing disappointment with both the military Government’s approach and pace. Since coming to power, this Government has not found a sing

Comrade J.C Njoku's Blog

Search This Blog