Skip to main content

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

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