Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the advice, guidance and support of
many people. To begin I must thank the Saratoga Springs Police Department for the approval
and financial support that was provided in order for me to complete this endeavor. The
assistance of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police (NYSACOP) provided the
mechanism by which the survey data was obtained for this project and particular mention must
be made of the NYSACOP training coordinator Mark Spawn, whose guidance and support made
the data collection as seamless as it could be for an inexperienced researcher. The support and
encouragement provided by my advisor, Dr. Sue Catana cannot be overstated. Self-imposed
deadlines and frustrations were met by Dr. Catana with understanding and encouragement.
Moments of stagnation were met with a subtle suggestion and gentle push when necessary.
Without a doubt the involvement of Dr. Catana in this project had a direct positive impact on its
successful conclusion. Second reader Dr. Robert Golden provided invaluable editorial
comment. Grammatical accuracy was achieved only through Dr. Golden’s intervention and his
editorial suggestions resulted in a far more readable product than I could have hoped to
achieve alone. Final thanks must be reserved for those most important in my life, my family.
My five children are owed a debt of gratitude by me for sacrificing playtime while their father
typed away in the basement. My wife Jennifer endured this process with unselfishness and
never-ending encouragement. She is the most wonderful, patient and beautiful woman I have
ever met and her patience, love and support throughout this process is something for which I
will be forever grateful.
1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this research effort is to identify how leaders are developed in police
departments in New York State and to determine if it is being done in a manner consistent with
best practices in leadership development. Many police administration authorities recognize the
lack of effective leadership in police departments as an underlying cause of many, if not all,
negative police performance and misconduct issues. (More, 2007) (Whisenand & Ferguson,
2002) (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, & McLaren, 1997) In addition, police officers themselves
indicate that ineffective leadership is an occupational stressor to a greater extent than the
danger inherent in their day-to-day patrol work. (Shane, 2010) On the other hand, effective
leadership has been identified as a positive motivator for police performance in general
(Iannone, 2001) (Enter, 2006) and since police officers are human beings we would expect that
positive leadership would affect performance the same as it would in other contexts. A
growing body of research may be indicating that the traditional command and control model of
police management is not effective in the present policing environment. Therefore it may be
important now, more than ever, that police managers “get it right” when it comes to
developing their leaders.
As a command level leader of a police department in New York State, this topic is
particularly important to me personally. As a waypoint on my personal journey as a police
leader, as well as an opportunity to more fully understand leadership in the policing context,
this research effort has specific personal importance to me. A brief description of my own
leadership experience may help clarify this point:
2
I was hired as a police officer in 1995 and promoted to investigator in 2001. The
department I work for follows the New York State Civil Service rules that provide for Civil
Service administered written examinations for each promotional step throughout the
organization. One must pass a test to be hired as an officer and successive examinations for
each rank through Chief of Police. The tests are given every two years. Only the top three
scores for each examination may be considered for promotion. In 2006 I was promoted to
sergeant with no prior leadership or management training. I literally was an investigator at
11:59 PM on a Friday night and a Sergeant at 12:00 AM Saturday with only one day of
notification that I had been promoted. The New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services
mandates that all newly appointed sergeants must attend a three week basic supervisor school
within one year of promotion. My experience was not unique in my department and when I
arrived at the basic school for police supervisor I learned that my experience was not unique in
other regional departments either. In 2007 I was again promoted to Lieutenant and was
fortunate to be selected to attend the FBI National Academy in Quantico, Virginia. It was
during my time at the National Academy that I was first exposed to a body of research, not
merely individual narratives that indicated how critical effective leadership was for successful
police operations. Upon graduation from the National Academy I began to pursue a Master’s
Degree in Leadership from the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, which of course led
to this research project. Another promotion to Assistant Chief of Police occurred along the way
and I now belong to the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police (NYSACOP) and
administer the basic course in police supervision at the regional police academy in Schenectady,
New York. My hope is that this research effort will not only further my individual leadership
3
abilities by providing a greater understanding of police leadership development in New York
State but also provide something of benefit to those Chiefs of Police whom I now have come to
know more personally. Finally, if this process enables me to identify anything of value that can
be brought back to those newly appointed leaders who will be passing through the regional
basic course in the coming years or provide insight that can assist my own department in the
development of leaders then it will truly be an effort that was worth making.
A survey of NYSACOP members was chosen for this research as a sample of the
population of all command officers in police departments in New York State. A pre-requisite of
membership in NYSACOP is employment as a command level officer in a Police Department in
New York State and therefore every member of the sample group is also a member of the
population under study. Since an appropriate sample is one that is a close as possible to being
representative of the population as a whole (Salkind, 2009), this sample allowed for valid
inferences to be drawn from the survey results to the population as a whole. The survey was
intended to address the following research question and propositions:
Research Question 1: Are leaders in Police Departments in New York State being
identified, promoted and developed consistently with best practices in the field of leadership
development?
P1a: Prior to promotion in police departments in New York State, leadership
potential is identified and opportunities for pre-promotional leadership training is provided to
officers of lower ranks.
4
P1b: Promotional decisions in police departments in New York State will be
based on leadership potential or work history.
P1c: Leaders in police departments in New York State will have regular
performance appraisals that include feedback from a variety of sources including subordinate
officers and other leaders of the same rank.
P1d: Police departments in New York State will develop their leaders with a
variety of development efforts including formal mentoring, field training programs and ongoing leadership training in addition to the state mandated basic course in police supervision.
With some 427 different municipal police departments in New York State (not including
University Police Departments, state-wide police agencies, sheriff’s departments or multijurisdictional task forces) employing over 63,000 full-time police officers, contacting command
level officers in each agency would certainly have been a time consuming task. (New York State
Department of Criminal Justice Services, 2012) A sample survey of police leaders was
conducted by email survey with the consent and assistance of the New York State Association
of Chiefs of Police (NYSACOP). Simple yes or no, quantitative questions were utilized to assess
whether or not something was happening. In addition to addressing the research questions
above, the survey instrument included several questions that attempted to assess the opinion
of command level police officers regarding leadership development and to possibly provide
some context on what is occurring in police departments in New York State. These types of
open-ended questions may have the added benefit of identifying some barriers to effective
5
leadership development in New York’s police departments as well as possible areas in need of
further study.
Methodology
A mixed methods approach was chosen for this research endeavor as the problem is
addressed in two parts. First, the research attempts to describe what is currently happening in
regards to leadership development in police departments in New York State. The second is an
attempt to discern the opinions of police executives regarding leadership development. Both
quantitative and qualitative data were collected utilizing a web-based survey. Quantitative
data was collected for the descriptive questions; either something is or is not presently
occurring. Qualitative data was collected for the open-ended opinion questions attempting to
assess the opinions of the survey respondents.
There are many textbooks on the subject of conducting social research. Many are
devoted to either one of two methods most commonly known as quantitative research or
qualitative research. A third method, that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative
research methods, is called mixed methods. (Salkind, 2009) (Creswell, 2003) (Morse & Niehaus,
2009)
The quantitative research method has been described as those research designs that
attempt to collect “hard” data using “rigid” methods. (Fielding & Fielding, 1986) Based upon
research methods in the natural sciences, quantitative research methods seek to eliminate
researcher bias and influence and ascertain numerical data points that may be used to either
6
prove or disprove a hypothesis. (Fielding & Fielding, 1986) (Creswell, 2003) Quantitative
research includes true experimental designs that test for cause-and-effect relationships or
descriptive research designs that seek to identify the characteristics of something that is
presently occurring or has occurred. (Creswell, 2003) (Salkind, Exploring Research, 7th Edition,
2009)
Qualitative research, particularly in the social sciences, has been described as seeking a
more “natural” explanation of events or phenomenon as opposed to the more controlled
research of purely experimental designs. (Fielding & Fielding, 1986) Although there are many
different ways in which qualitative research may be conducted, some examples of qualitative
research include ethnographies where a researcher examines an group in a natural setting over
a period of time collecting observational data, or case studies where a researcher may look at a
program or event using a variety of data collection methods and focus groups. (Creswell, 2003)
(Salkind, 2009) Qualitative data can also be used to help “flesh out” quantitative data by
providing context to numerical values based upon the opinions of respondents, in survey
research for example. (Hakim, 1987, p. 28) Qualitative research methods may be most
valuable when they can provide context for purely quantitative numerical values. (Salkind,
2009)
The mixed methods research design incorporates both qualitative and quantitative
strategies in a single study. (Creswell, 2003) (Morse & Niehaus, 2009) By recognizing that both
qualitative and quantitative methods have strengths and limitations, the mixed methods design
seeks to include both methods to develop a more complete understanding of the issue at hand.
7
(Creswell, 2003) Fielding and Fielding identified eight types of mixed methods design, each
with a core and supplemental component. (Fielding & Fielding, 1986, p. 25) While the specifics
of each individual type described by Fielding and Fielding are outside the scope of this research,
the basic premise is that mixed methods research consists of a core component and a
supplementary component. The core component is either quantitative or qualitative and the
supplementary component is the opposite. (Fielding & Fielding, 1986) Furthermore, Creswell
explains that the mixed-methods design uses one of three procedures to gather data and this
research utilized what he terms a “concurrent procedure,” meaning that the data was collected
at a single point in time and no follow-up contact was made with respondents. (Creswell, 2003)
The survey instrument included both quantitative methods and qualitative methods with
respondents being contacted only once. The core component was quantitative, describing
what was occurring in leadership development in police departments in New York State. For
example, one question asked respondents if leadership potential is identified prior to
promotion at their respective departments. Respondents are given a choice to answer either
“yes” or “no” and the resulting data can be quantified to indicate a percentage of respondent’s
departments that either are, or are not, identifying leadership potential prior to promotion.
Another question asks respondents how important it is that leadership potential be identified
prior to promotion using a forced-choice scale ranging from critical to not important. Answers
to this question would ideally provide some context to the data collected in a quantifiable
manner. By combining methods in the survey, it was hoped that more than just pure statistical
data would be obtained and some level of context could be gained as opposed to purely
numerical data.
8
As with all survey research efforts validity and generalizability are critical components to
ensure the research is rigorous enough to be considered legitimate. Reliability can be attained
with a few simple survey design techniques. Reliability concerns will be addressed first
followed by generalizability of the data and finally validity issues, each in turn.
Reliability in research can be understood to mean the degree to which results will vary
should the same test be given repeatedly. (Pedhazur & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, 1991) (Salkind,
Exploring Research, 7th Edition, 2009) (Babbie, 1990) Since this survey was delivered only once
and repeated applications were not conducted, reliability of the research must be determined
without an analysis of repeated testing. To establish reliability of survey research several steps
may be taken, such as eliminating unclear items, standardized instructions and increasing
sample size. (Salkind, 2009) Asking questions that the respondents are likely to know the
answer to and are relevant to their experience are also methods of establishing reliability in
survey research. (Babbie, 1990) The NYSACOP was chosen as a representative sample of
command level officers. No other organizations, for example FBI National Academy Associates,
New York State Sheriff’s Association or regional police chief organizations such as the Northeast
or Westchester County Chiefs of Police Associations, were included as those sample sizes would
have been much smaller and whose viewpoints may have introduced sub-sets of police leaders
that were not intended to be surveyed. The survey questions were reviewed by several police
supervisors who were not members of NYSACOP prior to the distribution of the survey to verify
clarity and comprehension. Several questions were adjusted, re-written or eliminated based
upon recommendations by reviewers. It was assumed that command level officers would have
knowledge of the quantitative questions such as, “Does your department have a field training
9
program for new supervisors similar to the field training program for new police officers?” and
could therefore provide accurate answers. Finally one set of identical instructions were
delivered with each survey.
Neil Salkind, in Exploring Research, 7th Edition states that, “only when the results can be
generalized from a sample to a population do the results of research have meaning beyond the
limited setting in which they were originally obtained.” (Salkind, 2009, p. 89) The population of
this study is all command level officers in Police Departments in New York State. “Command
level officers” having relatively the same meaning as “executives” in the business community.
Command level officers in police department typically hold the ranks of Chief, Assistant or
Deputy Chief, Major, Captain etc… and are generally removed from the day to day supervision
of street level police officers. The sample is those command officers who belong to the New
York State Association of Chiefs of Police and have current valid email addresses on file with the
organization. Since all members of the sample are also members of the population, then
generalizing the data collected was possible provided that the sample was large enough. Given
a response rate of 17.8% (91 responses out of a possible 511) the generalizability of the data
should be relatively secure. The sample size must be taken into account in order to assign
statistical significance to the survey results. (Bushway, 2006) Salkind suggests a minimum
sample size of 30 but that when there is very little variation in the population smaller sample
sizes are acceptable when considering representativeness. (Salkind, 2009) In this survey there
is very little variance in the most important characteristic, each respondent is a command
officer in a police department in New York State. Of course there is the unlikely possibility that
many command officers from a large department answered the survey and thereby skewed the
10
results in favor of a single department. The survey results however indicate that 60 selfidentified police chiefs responded to the survey and since police departments generally have
only one police chief, there could not have been multiple responses from a single agency that
had an over-represented influence on the survey results. Many social science researchers
accept a risk level of .05 and in this research effort it seems reasonable to accept a small
amount of risk that a type 1 error may be made in the analysis (a type 1 error in this case being
that the statistical conclusions are incorrect due to some unknown chance influence) (Bushway,
2006) Since the sample size is large enough to reduce the likelihood of chance influencing the
statistical outcome of the results, it can be stated with confidence that the survey results are an
accurate measure of what is occurring in police departments in New York State. If very few
respondents indicate something is happening then the data can be generalized to all police
departments based upon the acceptance that there is a very small probability of chance playing
a role in the outcome of the survey results and the strength of the sample. We can state with
confidence that if something is occurring at a rate of 50 per cent or more that the outcome is
statistically significant.
Validity simply means, “that the test or instrument measures what you need to have
measured”. (Salkind, 2009, p. 117) While the definition of validity seems simple enough,
establishing validity is a little more complex. One method that is often used to establish
validity, especially in a mixed methods research design, is triangulation. (Creswell, 2003)
(Wiggins, 2011) Triangulation is most beneficial (particularly to the social sciences) when
research is conducted using more than one method and the results converge. (Wiggins, 2011)
For example, a review of previous literature on a similar topic with similarly situated
11
respondents resulting is similar results as those obtained by a specific survey. Or a survey that
verifies an underlying rigorously supported general theory of what is being studied.
The validity of a survey can also be supported by establishing clarity in the questions
asked (Wikman, 2005), ensuring the survey is relevant to the target population (Van Selm &
Jankowski, Conducting Online Surveys, 2006), and reviewing results of similar questions to
assess whether or not responses remain consistent (Wikman, 2005) (Salkind, 2009). The clarity
of questions asked in a survey is critical as there is often very little ability to clarify with
respondents what is meant by the question. The survey administered here did not allow for
any personal contact between researcher and respondents, which necessitates the respondent
understanding the question regardless of what was intended by the researcher. Obviously the
biases of the researcher will also affect the validity of the survey if not acknowledged and
carefully considered when the data analysis is conducted. (Creswell, 2003) Consistency is
another check on validity in survey research and similar questions should reveal consistent
answers if the research method and survey design were constructed and administered
appropriately. (Wikman, 2005) (Salkind, 2009) A simple example might be a survey of
mathematical capability of a work unit containing twenty workers. If all twenty answered
1+1=2 and 2+2=4, but only two answered 4+4=8; then something is clearly wrong with the
research and the validity of the results must be questioned.
Once the data was collected the responses were downloaded to a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet for analysis. The quantitative questions were most often asked as simple yes/no
questions. The mean was then established by adding the total number of each response and
12
dividing by the number of responses revealing the percentage of respondents answering in a
particular manner. For example, one question asks, “Does your department have a formal
mentoring program for supervisors? Yes or No.” The number of “yes” and “no” responses were
collected and divided by the number of total responses for this particular question resulting in a
percentage of respondents answering in the affirmative or negative.
Qualitative data was collected using open ended questions like, “In your opinion, what
are the most important barriers to effective leadership development at your department?” No
pre-determined classifications were developed for answers. Results were analyzed looking for
similar themed responses. Similar phrases were added together to indicate which “themes”
were most present in the group of responses. For example, for the above question similar
responses like “laziness”, “lazy”, “unwilling to work hard” would have been included in the
same “theme” and added together to identify the most common barriers identified by
respondents. If a respondent chose to include more than one response that did not fit a single
“theme,” then the response would be added to each “theme”. For example, if a respondent
indicated the most common barriers were “laziness, seniority and department politics”, each of
those would be classified with similar responses. Since open-ended questions allowed for
respondents to write as much as they cared to, the number of possible classified responses
could be more than the number of single responses. However, the intent here is to get an
overall sense of what respondents believe and not to identify all possible responses. Related to
the question above then, the intent is to identify two or three barriers to effective leadership
development and not to develop an exhaustive list of all possible barriers according to
respondents.
13
Literature Review
Does leadership matter in police departments? If it does not, then developing leaders is
of no consequence to the organization. If it does, then how police leaders are developed is
essential to the effective performance of the department and thus worthy of examination.
Poor or ineffective leadership in police departments is often cited as a root cause of
police misconduct scandals that come to public attention. Two examples should suffice here:
[1]
During the late 1990’s, officers of the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD) engaged in the systematic use of excessive force (including the
shooting of unarmed civilians), planting of evidence, framing of innocent citizens for crimes
they did not commit, and other abuses driven by racism and greed. Over 100 cases were
overturned, at least 12 LAPD officers (including four sergeants) were suspended, fired or quit in
the wake of the scandal and over $200 million dollars in civil damages were paid as a result of
the misconduct of the officers. (Gross, 2005) (Report of the Rampart Independent review
Panel, 2000) While the Report of the Rampart Independent Review Panel does not absolve the
individual officers of the criminal behavior that they engaged in, the report does make
abundantly clear that a lack of leadership and proper oversight by those in leadership positions
was a significant contributing cause of how long the activity was occurring and how severe the
actions of the officers would become.
[2]
In a report by the Schenectady (NY) County Grand Jury in 2007, activity occurring
within the Schenectady Police Department was made public. Several officers of the
department were indicted for a number of criminal acts including the providing of drugs to
14
informants, brazen violations of departmental policy, lax evidence procedures and other abuses
of police authority. While not on the same scale of misconduct or violence as the Rampart
scandal, the report of the Schenectady County Grand Jury (while not excusing the responsibility
of individual officers for their behavior) cited a lack of leadership and oversight in the
development of an environment and culture that allowed for the activity to exist. (Schenectady
County Grand Jury, 2007)
The two examples above serve to illustrate the larger point that poor leadership is often
a root cause of poor police performance at best and extreme police misconduct at worst.
Police management authorities are in general agreement on this point. (More, 2007) (Iannone,
2001) (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, & McLaren, 1997) This is not to say that poor leadership
will always end in police misconduct and public scandal but that when misconduct is brought to
light an underlying factor in the situation is often poor, absent or ineffective leadership.
Leadership as a cultural influence may in fact allow for the conditions within which poor
performance and misconduct may occur should effective leadership be absent. Moreover,
poor and ineffective leadership is cited by officers themselves as one of the most stressful
aspects of their professional lives. (Shane, 2010) Police officers are equipped to deal with
sudden, unpredictable and violent episodes in situations and at times that are not of their
choosing. Every day they go to work they don a bullet proof vest and carry a firearm. Yet by
their own reporting they feel more discomfort and stress because of leaders who are
inconsistent, arbitrary and negative than anything they face on the streets they are asked to
patrol on a daily basis. (Shane, 2010) (Gilmartin, 2002) Although leadership that is inconsistent,
arbitrary and negative often can have the same type of negative effect on performance in other
15
types of organizations, (Bass & Riggio, 2006) (Nahavandi, 2009) two unique aspects of the
police culture in general may serve to amplify the negative effects of poor leadership and
supervision in police organizations. The first is the police culture within which leadership is
delivered and the second is the “quasi-military” structure of most, if not all police departments
(at least in the United States).
John P. Crank, in his book Understanding Police Culture, provides an excellent overview
of the police subculture. By examining how police officers think, feel and act; as well as how
police officers view the world in which they serve and protect, along with how they operate
within the structure of the department itself, Crank provides a basis on which police activity can
at least be understood. The most important and relevant point to this study is Crank’s
observation that the culture of policing (including the often arbitrary and petty delivery of
leadership in the organization) affects (often negatively) the officer individually and officers
generally as a group experience. Magnifying this issue is the concept that within police
departments there are two distinct sub-cultures, often referred to as “street cops” and
“management cops”. (Reuss-Ianni, 1983) “Street cops” are the officers and detectives that
provide the face-to-face delivery of police service to the public. They are concerned with
responding to emergencies, arresting criminals, saving lives, conducting investigations, along
with the endless variety of tasks and situations they are required to deal with during the course
of their working life. There is a definitive belief among “street cops” that what matters most is
the arresting of offenders and if need be, minor violations of policy and law can be sacrificed for
the greater good of attaining that goal of arresting offenders. (Reuss-Ianni, 1983) (Crank, 2004)
16
“Management cops” are the leaders of the police department of all ranks who share
the goal of catching crooks (the same as the street cops) but have the additional concern of the
manner in which police officers conduct themselves as they go about doing so. (Reuss-Ianni,
1983)
Additionally there is some evidence that police officers have greater respect for those
senior managers they perceive to be willing, or in fact have, shown an ability to engage in
“street cop” work. (Rowe, 2006) The difficulty in having police managers engaged in street
level work is clearly that they are then not engaged in completing their managerial tasks. Police
management should not be involved in day-to-day street level tasks. (Iannone, 2001)
(Whisenand & Ferguson, 2002) As one author succinctly puts it, because of the enormous
complexity and difficulty in delivering leadership within a police department that is both
considerate of officer needs and properly managed in a fiscally responsible manner, police
leaders are “decidedly not engaged in a popularity contest.” (Cordner, 2007, p. 301) It is
because of this “bright line” division between police officers and police managers that effective
leadership is so important to the overall performance of the police department. As one might
conclude from the preceding, the police command staff is often viewed as outsiders by line
officers who have the responsibility of delivering police services to the public. To this point, in
the Schenectady County Grand Jury report referred to above, the observation was made that
“there is a strong culture in the Schenectady Police Department that discourages supervision.”
(Schenectady County Grand Jury, 2007) Is it any wonder that poor or ineffective leaders would
be entirely insufficient in an environment described in this manner?
17
Compounding the division of “street” and “management” cops, is the command and
control model of most (if not all) police departments in the United States today. Police
Departments are structured along the military model of organization with rank structures and
lines of authority similar to that of the armed forces. (Walker, 1992) (Cordner, 2007). The
command and control model of leadership may work very well in military units where
immediate and harsh discipline of minor mistakes may be necessary to save lives. There are
some very good reasons why the command and control model is in existence in police
departments today.
Police departments were originally developed and organized along the line of the
military rank structure (Walker, 1992) and police officers of all types (street and management)
often place a great deal of value on tradition. (Crank, 2004) Additionally, in the first half of the
20th century, the command and control model of administering police departments was very
successful in controlling a great deal of the widespread corruption that was present in many
American police forces at that time. (Walker, 1992) From the late 1880’s to the early 1920’s
many American police departments could be generally characterized as largely corrupt and
undisciplined with the jobs of individual officers dependent upon the results of local elections.
(Dunham & Alpert, 2001) Police administration reforms of this era (1920’s-1960’s) included an
effort to improve discipline, the centralization of authority in the office of the Chief of Police,
and the adoption of civil service systems. (Dunham & Alpert, 2001) As a result of this reform
movement, the command and control structure of the police department served administrators
very well in bringing widespread abuses under control through the installation of disciplinary
systems coupled with harsh and immediate negative consequences for even minor infractions.
18
However effective the command and control model of management was in bringing about
positive change in police departments throughout the country during the middle part of the last
century, there are a number of problems with the command and control structure of today’s
police departments, including the inappropriate interpretation and application of the “military
model” of discipline to police services, and the inability of leaders to align an over-reliance of
command and control systems to modern “Community Oriented Policing” concepts and
initiatives.
Soldiers in the army could be compared to patrol officers in a police department. Each
does the work of the mission and each has an immediate supervisor, generally a sergeant. The
difference between them at this very basic level of supervisor-subordinate relationship
however is dramatic. While on paper both the officer and the soldier are directly responsible to
a sergeant, in the military the soldier is rarely not under the direct immediate supervision of a
sergeant, while the police officer spends a great deal of time outside of the immediate control
of their first line supervisor. (Perez, 2011) The mission of the soldier is limited- win the battle
(Malone, 1983) while the mission of the modern day police department is incredibly diverse
and complex. (Walker, 1992) (Klockars, 1985) (Iannone, 2001) In fact, the military model of
command and control is often misunderstood and/or misapplied by police managers. The
military of today does not rely solely on order giving to masses of unthinking, robot-like troops.
(Cowper, 2000) (Malone, 1983) Long ago military leaders recognized the limited use of a rigid
command and control structure in motivating and inspiring people to be creative and solve
complex problems. (Cowper, 2000) The United States Army Leadership Manual referred to as
FM 22-100 and titled “Army Leadership. Be, Know, Do” is a document of over 150 pages that
19
contains very little reference to order giving. The manual does contain considerable direction
for army leaders on topics such as character of the leader, influencing and motivating soldiers,
taking care of soldiers, leadership styles (transactional and transformational, participative,
directive and delegating), the human element in leadership, counseling, mentoring and other
leadership concepts. What is not found in the FM 22-100 manual is an overreliance on fear,
intimidation and control, as a method of achieving organizational success. Although there is
direction in the manual for clear and direct order giving in certain situations (especially combat)
that would require an autocratic leadership approach, the overall recognition in this particular
military manual on leadership is that positive, participative leadership is critical to excellent
organizational performance. (Department of the Army, 1999) This would appear to be lost on
many police leaders who have utilized the “quasi-military” structure of the police to apply
leadership in an ineffective, arbitrary and often petty manner. (Schafer J. A., 2010)
An outstanding example of this reliance on excessive command and control and the
negative outcomes that may arise from it was discovered by William Ker Muir, Jr. and published
in his book Police: Streetcorner Politicians in 1977. Muir studied a medium sized police
department (400 patrol officers) in an in-depth case study. Although the book extends well
beyond leadership issues in the department, he does make the observation that in the
department under study the Chief of Police had instituted very harsh disciplinary procedures as
a result of several serious corruption scandals the department had experienced in the past. The
result of the extreme reliance on command and control and the harsh manner in which minor
violations of policy were dealt with through the internal affairs division did in fact result in a
largely corruption-free department. However, what Muir also points out is that the internal
20
environment of the department was so authoritarian, petty and unforgiving that honest officers
who would never engage in corrupt activities or lie on the witness stand routinely either did not
cooperate or outright deceived internal affairs investigators during internal investigations.
(Muir, 1977) This situation, police administrators, as well as the public at large it is hoped,
would consider unacceptable.
The unique culture of police discussed briefly above, along with the general command
and control organizational leadership approach that may be being improperly applied by police
department leaders, gives us a context within which a basic understanding of leadership in
police departments can at least be understood, particularly the lack of effective leadership in
police organizations. However effective the command and control model may have been in
dealing with the widespread corruption in American law enforcement at the turn of the last
century, modern police administration authorities and progressive police leaders will recognize
the mismatch between this leadership approach and the more positive and participative
leadership approaches given the changing nature and expectations of police work and the
adoption of a more community oriented model of the delivery of police services.
The Community Oriented Policing model that has gained widespread acceptance in
American police agencies during the last two decades has recognized the changing nature of
policing and expectations of the police since the middle part of the twentieth century. As
discussed earlier, during the early half of the 1900’s American policing was marked by
widespread corruption, little or no educational requirements and a general lack of discipline in
the sense that we understand it today. (Walker, 1992) The reliance on command and control
21
structures to bring this situation under control led to the era of what has been termed the
“Professionalism” era which was marked by the image of the police officer as primarily a law
enforcement officer, beat assignments, the encouragement of education and attendant
increases in minimum educational requirements in general. (Walker, 1992) (Iannone, 2001)
This period of the “Professional” model of policing was dominant during the middle decades of
the twentieth century and did have several benefits, including an increase in the educational
level of many police officers, reduced political influences on departments, better trained
officers who were viewed as “experts” (the only experts) in the arena of crime control, and
efficient bureaucracies that isolated police officers from the communities they served.
(Dunham & Alpert, 2001) However, police leaders would soon recognize the limitations of the
“Professional” policing model during the turbulent years of the 1960’s and 1970’s. The
recognition that perhaps the isolation from the community and the focus on crime statistics
and response times as measures of police effectiveness was not the most productive manner in
which to deliver police services led to the development of the “Community Oriented Policing”
paradigm. (Walker, 1992) The Community Oriented Policing philosophy is designed to decentralize decision making in routine police matters. Officers are encouraged to become
problem solvers of long term issues rather than merely technical experts who respond to calls
for service and deliver the appropriate law enforcement response. Community Oriented
Policing encourages officers to be creative and cooperative in solving problems and measures
effective policing in terms of the reduction of citizen fear of crime, the absence of crime,
improved neighborhood conditions and community relations as opposed to simply measuring
police effectiveness by response times and arrest rates. (Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008)
22
(Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, & McLaren, 1997) While command and control leadership may
be aligned with the “Professional” model of policing and the prior reform era, command and
control would not seem to be well suited as a leadership method if applied to the principles of
Community Oriented Policing efforts.
If we ask police officers to become more responsible for creatively finding and
implementing solutions to long term neighborhood problems, upholding high standards of
ethical behavior, finding meaning in their work activities, engaging their communities in a joint
effort to solve mutual problems and encouraging well-meaning and educated police officers to
utilize their talents and think for themselves, then clearly command and control, inconsistent,
autocratic and negative leadership is not going to get the job done. On the other hand, the
concepts of Community Oriented Policing outlined briefly above would seem to be a match for
the types of positive, participative leadership concepts that have been developed over years of
study. One leadership model that appears to be well suited to the ideals of the Community
Oriented Policing paradigm is the “Full Range of Leadership Model” identified by Bernard Bass
and Ronald Riggio in their book, Transformational Leadership.
The Full Range of Leadership Model provides that leadership is delivered across a range
of leadership behaviors. Theoretically the Full Range of Leadership Model supposes that
leaders display a range of leadership behaviors that can be identified along a continuum from
“Laissez-Faire” as the least effective to “Transformational” being the most effective. (Bass &
Riggio, 2006) The following discussion is a summary of the Full Range of Leadership Model that
is more fully discussed in Bass and Riggio’s book, Transformational Leadership.
23
Laissez-Faire Leadership- Defined as the avoidance of leadership or the lack of any
leadership at all. This is the most inactive as well as the most ineffective style of leadership and
one only needs to return to the Los Angeles and Schenectady, NY police scandals outlined
previously to recognize the impact of the absence of leadership in the police environment.
Management by Exception (Passive) - The leader waits for problems or mistakes to be
brought to his attention before taking corrective action.
Management by Exception (Active) - This leadership behavior occurs when the leader
actively monitors workers for deviations from standards and takes corrective actions as
necessary. This may be a reasonably effective method of leadership in situations where safety
is a priority.
Contingent Reward- A more positive form of leadership than the previous methods
where the leader obtains follower agreement on what needs to be done and explains the
rewards if the work is completed satisfactorily.
Transformational Leadership- Leaders employing transformational leadership seek to
inspire and motivate followers to high levels of performance, provide meaningful context for
the followers work efforts and inspire followers to develop into leaders themselves. Essentially
transformational leadership seeks to positively influence followers to achieve greater meaning
and performance than even they themselves thought possible. Leaders do this by utilizing the
“Four I’s” of transformational leadership: Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation,
Intellectual Stimulation, and Individual Consideration. Each now will be briefly taken in turn:
24
Idealized Influence: Essentially this is leadership by example. Leaders behave in ways
that demonstrate high moral and ethical standards; they are consistent, willing to take
reasonable risks and exhibit persistence and a can be relied upon to do the right thing.
Inspirational Motivation: Leaders who demonstrate inspirational motivation involve
followers in envisioning a future better state, provide meaningful context for follower’s efforts,
remain optimistic and communicate common goals and shared visions effectively. Combined
with idealized influence, this factor of transformational leadership is very similar to charismatic
leadership.
Intellectual Stimulation: Here the transformational leader encourages creativity,
innovation and problem solving. Followers are encouraged to try new approaches to old
problems. Ideas and suggestions are solicited.
Individualized Consideration: Each follower is given individual attention by the leader
in regard to the follower’s specific needs. Individual differences are recognized and each
follower is encouraged and supported according to his or her individual needs.
A couple of points need to be addressed before advancing the discussion. First is that it
must be recognized that leaders will engage in behaviors along the full range of leadership
behaviors as outlined above. The essential point is that the most effective leaders exhibit more
of the transformational leadership behaviors than the others and fewer of the laissez-faire
behaviors than the others. Each of the foregoing leadership approaches can be appropriate in a
given situation. (Bass & Riggio, 2006) (Bass & Bass, 2008) Transformational leadership can be
directive or participative (Bass & Riggio, 2006) depending upon the individual and context and
25
transformational leadership builds upon the other leadership behaviors, which is consistent
with research indicating that effective leadership requires both “consideration and structuring
behaviors”. (Nahavandi, 2009) This last point should be of comfort to police leaders who fear
that too little command and control may result in problems for the police department such as
rampant corruption or unnecessary safety risks. Understanding that participative and positive
police leadership does not mean that directive and autocratic leadership will not be needed at
times and in certain situations, progressive police leaders should recognize that
transformational leadership is not an either/or proposition. By recognizing that
transformational leadership builds upon contingent reward and management by exception
(more closely related to command and control systems) and does not replace them, it is clear
that that there is still a place for some command and control leadership behaviors in policing
when appropriate. Establishing a common understanding of what is expected of followers and
defining the rewards (contingent reward) and punishments associated with performance, then
following up and correcting behavior that is deficient (management by exception), creates the
environment within which performance standards and discipline can be set. The real danger
for police department leaders here is that contingent reward and management by exception
can be relatively effective in terms of performance outcomes (Nahavandi, 2009) (Bass & Bass,
2008) and thus the leader assumes that the command and control model is effectively
motivating police officers to do their job. According to Peter Senge in his book, The Fifth
Discipline, leaders are often limited by what he terms “mental models”. (Senge P. M., 1990)
Mental models refers to the manner in which we think and process information in our
environment. This concept is at the heart of the matter in terms of developing police leaders.
26
Senge puts it best, “…new insights fail to get put into practice because they conflict with deeply
held internal images of how the world works, images that limit us to familiar ways of thinking
and acting.” (Senge P. M., 1990, p. 163) Applying Peter Senge’s concept of mental models to
the police leaders’ view that command and control works police leaders who lack experience
and/or knowledge of the benefits of other leadership paradigms, one can easily understand the
reluctance of police leaders who lack experience to change or develop leadership approaches in
any other manner than that which they have always known. Add to this the culture of police
addressed above and the mismatching of command and control leadership styles with
Community Oriented Policing ideals, and we can understand the police leadership situation
perhaps a little more fully.
Modern, positive leadership approaches, in particular transformational leadership and
other participative styles of leadership, seem to be well suited for application in the area of
police leadership. For example, the transformational leadership components of Idealized
Influence and Inspirational Motivation are closely related to charisma and the identification of
followers with their leaders. Leading by example is a common theme found in police
administration and leadership literature. (Cordner, 2007) (Iannone, 2001) (Lynch, 2005) (More,
2007) In addition, research has linked role modeling positively with reducing integrity
violations among police officers (Huberts, Kaptein, & Lasthuizen, 2007) and with the
development of future leaders and employee performance in the Washington, DC Metropolitan
Police Department. (Williams & Kellough, 2006) Compared with the average American police
officer of the past, today’s police officers consistently express the need for challenging work
and an environment in which creativity is encouraged. (Gilmartin, 2002) (Enter, 2006)
27
However, just as consistently police officers are reporting that their organizations are not
providing leadership that is intellectually stimulating or individually considerate (components of
transformational leadership) and in fact departments continue with an over reliance on
command and control approaches to the detriment of excellent police performance. (Schafer J.
A., Developing Effective Leadership in Policing: Perils, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward, 2009) (More,
2007) Community Oriented Policing models would seem to require police leaders to have a
wide range of leadership skills. The Community Oriented policing model is asking police officers
to take a more problem solving approach to their work; however the old autocratic system of
police leadership seems to remain very much entrenched in American police departments.
Ideally a neighborhood police officer in the Community Oriented Policing model would be free
to creatively address crime and disorder issues within his assigned area, to engage community
members in actively finding solutions to problems, and then implementing ideas collectively
generated to solve problems. Yet the reality for many police officers today is that departments
say they are community oriented but their leaders continue to require a certain amount of
quantifiable activity (tickets, crime reports etc…), adherence to district and zone boundaries,
permission from superior officers when anything new is tried, all while officers are rated and
evaluated by just one person, their immediate supervisor. Describing the situation in this
manner, is it any wonder that police officers today are generally unhappy with the leadership
they are receiving?
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, funded by a grant from the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, published a desk reference for newly promoted police chiefs. The manual,
titled Police Chiefs Desk Reference - A Guide for Newly Appointed Police Leaders contains a
28
section on leadership in which it is suggested that the old command and control model of police
leadership is no longer valid. Police departments will be required in the future to develop
leadership at all levels of the organization if they are to remain successful. Team building,
problem solving, decision making at the lowest possible level, community involvement,
obtaining feedback from a variety of sources, and mentoring are all prominently featured in the
leadership section of the manual. (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2004) Other
police administration authorities place importance on positive leadership approaches as well.
(Dunham & Alpert, 2001) (Iannone, 2001) (Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008) These types of
leadership approaches and skills seem to be aligned with the Community Oriented Policing
model. Similarly these types of leadership behaviors are supported in other settings as well.
In other words, good leadership practices are effective regardless of the situation. Developing
effective leaders is critical for all organizations.
What business leaders have known and acknowledged for some time is that leadership
often makes the difference in organizational performance. Leadership behaviors that are in
alignment with those described in the transformational leadership model are often cited by
business management and organizational development authorities. In his book, Good to Great,
author Jim Collins identifies what he terms “Level 5 Leadership” as one of the essential
elements of top performing companies, despite his research team’s effort to downplay the
effect of leadership on company performance. (Collins, 2001) Collins defined Level 5
Leadership as those leaders who exhibit “…a paradoxical blend of personal humility and
professional will.” (Collins, 2001, p. 20) Collins’ description of the Level 5 leader, driven,
committed to the organization, developing successors, modest and accepting of feedback from
29
a variety of sources, would fit very well with the transformational leadership concepts of
Idealized Influence and Inspirational Motivation.
Published in 2011, Harvard Business Review’s Ten Must Reads on Leadership contains an
article by John P. Kotter titled “What leaders really do” in which he identifies effective
leadership as motivating and inspiring rather than controlling activities in a typically managerial
manner. (Kotter, What Leaders Really Do, 2011) In fact, Kotter indicates that business success in
today’s complex and dynamic environment cannot be achieved without leaders who empower
employees to be creative and effectively communicate a compelling vision for the future.
(Kotter, Leading Change, 1996) Again, we can see similarities with two of the four elements of
transformational leadership (Inspirational Motivation and Intellectual Stimulation) in Kotter’s
work in the business world.
In The Leadership Challenge, authors James Kouzes and Bruce Posner recognize the
importance of leaders who behave in a manner consistent with the transformational leadership
principle of Individualized Consideration. Throughout their book the importance of the
relationship between leader and follower is identified. Recognizing contributions, enabling and
empowering followers, and developing subordinates’ skills and abilities are all included as
essential characteristics of effective leadership. (Posner & Kouzes, 2007)
Transformational leadership theory (Burns, 1978) (Bass & Riggio, 2006) itself has been
the subject of considerable study over the past three decades. There is support for
transformational leadership behaviors in many areas that would be applicable to the modern
policing environment. One study that highlighted the effectiveness of a transformational
30
leader in a police department, along with the difficulties with which these types of leaders
often must contend, indicated that one leader who exhibited transformational leadership
behaviors had followers who were highly motivated and identified with the example set by the
leader. When asked about the leader by superior officers in the same department, the opinion
of the leadership of the individual was almost the polar opposite. Senior leaders indicated that
the individual, though popular with line officers, often broke too many rules and failed to
properly adhere to proper regulations. (Murphy, 2008) This example indicates both the
effectiveness of transformational leadership in motivating subordinates in police organizations
by providing a creative, innovative environment as well as a leader whom followers feel they
are connected to and the limitations of the traditional command and control structure in
developing effective leaders. It would appear then that developing or teaching the types of
behaviors contained in the transformational leadership model may be the right course for
police departments seeking to improve performance. The question, given the cultural and
historical issues addressed earlier, is in what ways can police departments best develop their
personnel to become more effective leaders?
“Teach and institute leadership” is one of W. Edward Demming’s 14 principles of quality
control. (Evans, 2008) Leadership is found throughout organizations (Posner & Kouzes, 2007)
and the International Association of Chiefs of Police encourages police chiefs to “Develop
leaders at all organizational levels and for all functions in the agency.” (International
Association of Chiefs of Police, 1999) Recognizing the importance of leadership to effective
police performance, the next logical question to ask is what is the best way to develop
leadership in police departments?
31
One way of looking at leader and leadership development is that developing leaders is
best done on a platform of skills and knowledge, supported by appropriate feedback and
encouraged through mentoring and coaching type relationships. Whether leaders are born or
made is an age-old question beyond the scope of this research. However when examining
leadership in police organizations, the general process should be examined to determine if
leadership potential is identified prior to promotion. In the typically hierarchical structure of
most police departments the rank designation is apparently of great importance. Some
authorities are suggesting that leadership skills are developed long before professional life
begins as an adult. (Bass & Bass, 2008) (Avolio, 2011) For these authors, leadership is
developed throughout life and the baseline of skills and behaviors upon which leadership is
developed is learned in the childhood environment. While the police department has little if
any influence on the leadership development of their employees prior to their employment, the
police department is in a position to identify leadership potential and make efforts toward
training and developing leadership potential prior to promoting an individual into the
leadership ranks. Formal training programs and seminars are designed to impart knowledge
and skills. As long as the training program is successful, traditional training programs can help
form a baseline of skills and knowledge that can then be developed further. One study found
that leaders who were trained in both reflective-supportive and directive styles of leadership
did in fact utilize both styles of leadership appropriately in given situations as compared with a
control group of non-trained leaders. (Bass & Bass, 2008) Many companies, focused on the
bottom line, are requesting training programs aligned with their specific organization’s goals.
(Nahavandi, 2009) Unfortunately we again see that this may not be the case in police
32
departments throughout the country. Mid-level police leaders in the United States, attending a
professional development course, identified a lack of training opportunities and insufficient
mentoring in their organizations as an important impediment to the practice and improvement
of leadership skills at their home agencies. (Schafer J. A., Effective Police Leadership, 2008)
Although top-quality training is often an expensive proposition for many police departments,
the importance of continuous training is not lost on police management authorities.
(Whisenand & Ferguson, 2002) (Carpenter & Fulton, 2010) (Bratton, 2008) The North Carolina
Highway Patrol and the Scottish Police Service both integrate formal training programs into
their leadership development efforts. (Putney & Holmes, 2008) (Association of Chief Police
Officers in Scotland, 2009) Perhaps the best practice in leader development in police
departments is that leadership potential is identified prior to promotion, or at the very least
those that desire a leadership position are provided with opportunities to develop their
leadership skills before being placed in a formal leadership role. Regardless of what skills and
abilities are brought by an individual leader to the position, the organization has the continuing
obligation to develop leadership ability. This may best be achieved by learning through
experience.
Experience may be the best teacher and many in the field of leadership encourage
leaders to develop their skills by actively seeking new and challenging experiences. (Senge P.
M., 1990) (Collins, 2001) (Posner & Kouzes, 2007) (Bass & Riggio, 2006) In The Practice of
Leadership edited by Jay A. Conger and Ronald E. Riggio, Morgan W. McCall and George P.
Hollenbeck write in “Getting Leader Development Right” that people learn from the
experiences they have and that the key to developing leaders is to provide opportunities for
33
leaders to go through experiences and then analyze the experiences so that the leader can
learn and grow from them. Paul M. Whisenhand and R. Fred Ferguson advise essentially the
same process in their book The Managing of Police Organizations. Even the military utilizes
“after action reports” to provide honest feedback to those who have been through a particular
experience. (Department of the Army, 1999) (Malone, 1983) The policing environment is ripe
for the development of leaders through experience. Every call for service is on some level
unique. Society is constantly changing and becoming more diverse. Police departments deal
with a wide range of human behaviors and emotions at all hours of the day and night. This
environment rich in complex and dynamic experiences is ripe for the development of leaders,
provided that they receive appropriate and honest feedback and encouragement from their
leaders.
Honest feedback is an essential component of learning through experience. The value
of feedback from a variety of sources is reflected in the emergence of 360 degree performance
evaluations as a valuable performance development tool. (London, Smither, & Diamante, 2007)
In business the principle of “the voice of the customer” indicates that those on the receiving
end to the delivery of services have valuable information that must be obtained in order to
improve performance rather than simply having the line-level supervisor assess the
effectiveness of employee performance. (Evans, 2008) In much the same way, progressive
police leaders are advocating for a more officer behavior-focused, experienced based
performance evaluation system than the traditional strict hierarchical approach to leadership
assessment (Whisenand & Ferguson, 2002) as well as collection of data from a variety of
stakeholders in assessing organizational performance. (Cordner, 2007)
34
Developing a baseline of skills and abilities and then having a variety of experiences and
obtaining feedback from a variety of sources sets the stage for the leader to learn and grow.
Coaching and mentoring have been recognized as valuable leadership development tools in
business, the military and policing. (Bass & Bass, 2008) (Department of the Army, 1999)
(Whisenand & Ferguson, 2002) Effective mentoring in a number of fields has been shown to
improve retention rates, motivation, individual development, and was particularly important
for young managers and women. (Bass & Bass, 2008) The United States Army provides
extensive guidance on mentoring, coaching and counseling in its leadership guide.
(Department of the Army, 1999) Mentoring and coaching behaviors are becoming increasingly
important in police departments. Given the complex and dynamic experiences that many
police leaders encounter, the educational value of the experience may be lost in the traditional
strict chain of command relationship between leader and follower. Simply living through the
experience is not enough to learn from it. Police leaders who fail to engage in mentoring and
coaching behaviors lose the benefit of providing context and feedback to those further down
the chain of command. Mentors and coaches who support and encourage rather than direct
and punish should realize over the long term the benefit of developing future leaders in this
manner.
Traditionally police leaders have relied upon the strict command and control model of
leadership. Historically there have been some very good reasons for the command and control
model and police leaders who implemented these systems in the past were somewhat
successful in combating many of the evils they were designed to combat. As society has
changed over time, becoming more complex and diverse, and as the demands and expectations
35
of police officers have changed as well, a new model of policing has emerged. Community
Oriented Policing asks police officers to be more than merely responders to emergencies.
Officers engaged in Community Oriented Policing should be less concerned with statistical
measures of activity and more concerned with long term problem solving, developing
community relationships, and quality of life measures of police performance. This model of
policing requires a different set of behaviors than traditional policing methods and
consequently requires a different model of police leadership. Command and control, directive
leadership worked well in the policing systems of the past. In today’s Community Oriented
Policing strategy, police leaders are required to behave in a more participative manner.
Aligning leadership styles with departmental policing strategy would seem to require police
leaders to behave more like transformational leaders than mere commanders. The current
leadership methods of many police leaders have been recognized by police officers and midlevel leaders themselves as being ineffective at worst and impediments to effective leadership
development at best. Developing leaders who behave more like transformational leaders might
require leadership development methods that are new to police departments which are slow to
change by their very nature. Identifying leadership skill prior to promotion and providing
opportunities for leadership training could form a baseline upon which police leaders can be
developed. Once police leaders are promoted to positions of formal authority, police
department must invest in their development and one of the best ways in which to develop
leaders is through their experiences. The rich experiences of policing provide an excellent
opportunity for department executives to develop the abilities of their leaders. Obtaining
appropriate and honest feedback from a variety of sources will give the leader the data
36
necessary to learn from the experience. Mentoring and coaching will become increasingly
important to the development of police leaders in the future. Mentored leaders have a greater
chance of success if they have someone to place their experiences in context and support their
transformational leadership efforts that may sometimes fail. Leadership strategy that is not in
alignment with organizational goals and objectives is sure to be ineffective. Developing leaders
who practice leadership in alignment with what is expected from the modern police
department may be a path to policing excellence.
DATA COLLECTION AND RESULTS PRESENTATION
For this research project a sample survey of police leaders was conducted by email
survey with the consent and assistance of the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police
(NYSACOP).
The New York State Association of Chiefs of Police (NYSACOP) is a non-profit
organization dedicated to support Chiefs of Police and other executive or administrative level
command officers in New York State. NYSACOP has over 500 members. Further information
can be found at www.nychiefs.org.
As a descriptive, non-experimental research project the data collected was never
intended to identify fixed statistical probabilities or correlations between variables. Although
some correlates might be established between data collected for certain questions, the
purpose here is to assess what is happening in leadership development in police departments in
New York State. The survey and research would fall short of attempting to identify specific
correlations between variables. Open ended questions do allow for some context within which
the data can be evaluated but again, the strength of these questions lies in their descriptive
37
characteristics of what command level police officers believe and can possibly identify some
interesting areas ripe for further study.
The survey was delivered by email utilizing the NYSACOP member list as the population
(n=453). The NYSACOP Survey Monkey account was utilized to deliver and collect the data.
The initial email was sent to all members of NYSACOP on September 19, 2011. A reminder
email and survey was sent on September 29, 2011 to all those in the population who did not
respond. The survey data collector was closed on October 6, 2011. . A link to the survey was
posted on the NYSACOP website during the duration of the time the survey was active and a
notification was published in the print edition of the monthly NYSACOP newsletter during this
time period. Responses were received anonymously with no individual identifiers collected.
93 total responses were collected. Of those, seven responses were removed for the following
reasons:
Response #4 contained the exact same response to the first several questions as
response #5 and then no further responses. The rank, years of experience, population served
and number of sworn police officers all matched exactly. Two fill-in-the blank questions were
submitted using the almost exact same words and response #5 left most of the questions
relevant to the propositions blank. Based on the similarities of the answers it appears that
some error was likely made in the submission of response #5, and since the most relevant
questions to the research in response #5 were left unanswered, response #5 was eliminated as
a legitimate response.
38
Response #50 had only one answer provided. The answer was in response to what rank
the respondent currently held. This answer was not relevant to the research propositions and
with no other answers provided, this answer was also rejected as a legitimate answer.
An additional 5 respondents began the survey but stopped after answering question
number 8. With no ability to follow up with respondents it is not known why these
respondents decided to stop answering the survey questions at this point. It does raise concern
that perhaps it was at this point in the survey that respondents realized how long the survey
would be and decided not to continue, that the question created confusion for respondents, or
that there may have been a technical issue leading to the five drop-outs at the same point. All
of the above possibilities are addressed as concerns and possible negative influences on
response in on-line survey research. (Van Selm & Jankowski, Conducting Online Surveys, 2006)
These five responses were eliminated from the data analysis as the first seven questions were
mainly biographical background type questions such as rank, agency size, number of sworn
officers etc… and had a limited effect on the research question and propositions.
The survey was intended to measure the identification, promotion and development of
leaders in police departments in New York State and as such the format was broken down
(although not rigidly) into four sections. These sections include an introduction, the
importance of identification of leadership potential prior to promotion, the promotional
process and decision, and lastly the development of leaders post-promotion.
The first four questions (introduction) were designed to gather basic biographical data
that also helped to serve as a check on validity and to introduce respondents to the topic. The
39
basic biographical questions included asking a respondent’s rank, the population of the
jurisdiction served and the number of sworn personnel. Logically most local governments
require more police officers as population increases. These two questions were compared
with each other to ensure that relative population and sworn officer numbers remained
consistent. If several responses indicated very low populations with exceedingly high numbers
of sworn officers reported, a logical question would arise regarding the validity of these simple
responses. In addition rank was asked to ensure that top commanders, as intended, were
represented in the group. If very few Chiefs of Police were represented in the number of
respondents then a review of the value of the survey would certainly be warranted. Question
number four asked, “Excluding yourself, how would you rate the overall leadership at your
department?” This question served to introduce the respondent to the topic of leadership in
general. Although this question was not related to the research question specifically, it did
serve to indicate whether or not command level officers thought the overall leadership in their
department was adequate. Respondents were asked to rate the overall leadership at their
departments utilizing a scale of 1-10 where 1=”terrible” and 10=Excellent. This question
yielded an average of 7.36. Considering previous studies on police leadership that indicated a
lack of effective leadership in police departments (Enter, 2006) (Schafer J. A., Developing
Effective Leadership in Policing: Perils, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward, 2009) the 7.36 average
seemed to not quite fit with previous research. A second look at the data however might yield
an explanation. This study was unique in only assessing responses obtained from command
officers. Other studies indicating lower assessments of leadership in police department
included supervisors of lower ranks as opposed to the executive level officers here. In addition,
40
it was noted that a majority of the respondents indicated that their departments had less than
30 officers. Police departments are typically organized in the classic pyramid style of
organizational structure (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, & McLaren, 1997) (Walker, 1992) and as
such, fewer officers require fewer levels of supervision. With most departments having fewer
than 30 officers, perhaps the question was unfair in the sense that by “excluding yourself”
many respondents may have been assessing only one or two other leaders within their
organization. In the smallest of departments, the chief may not be able to “exclude” him or
herself when assessing leadership in the department. This could be an interesting area of
further study and help to explain why police executives in New York State have a seemingly
higher general opinion of just how much effective leadership is occurring in police departments
when compared with other populations of police personnel.
The self-identified rank of each respondent was asked and responses ranged from
Sergeant through Chief. The NYSACOP is a command-level organization and although a
sergeant in a larger agency would be considered a line-level supervisor, in small agencies, with
few employees, a sergeant may very well be considered a commanding officer. The selfidentified ranks of respondents were: 60 Chiefs of Police, 12 Deputy/Assistant Chiefs, 2 Division
Commanders and 11 “others”. Those indicating “other” included sergeant, lieutenant and
inspector. One respondent did not answer this question. The population of the respondent’s
jurisdiction was asked with the vast majority, 64 of 86 responses, having a population served of
fewer than 50,000. Six respondents were from jurisdiction of over 100,000, another five
respondents indicated their population served as between 50,000 and 74,999. Of the
remaining respondents, 17 jurisdictions were between 25,000 and 49,999, 33 between 10,000
41
and 24,999, and 24 indicated populations of 10,000 or less. One respondent did not give a
population as the individual indicated he or she was part of a multi-jurisdictional task force.
The smallest population indicated was 2,000 while the largest was 19 million. The number of
sworn officers was asked of survey respondents. The fewest number of officers was just 6
while the largest was 35,000. Just more than half of the respondents indicated that had
between 11 and 30 sworn officers (45 of 86). Eleven respondents worked in departments with
over 100 officers with the remaining responses ranging from 6 to 79 sworn officers.
The second area of the survey addressed the area of pre-promotion identification of
leadership potential. This section began by asking respondents to assess how important the
identification of leadership potential is prior to promotion. Four pre-selected choices of
“Critical”, “Very Important”, “Important”, and “Not important” were allowed for the response.
No respondents indicated that leadership potential was “not important” prior to promotion.
Fifty (62.5%) chose “critical” while another 37% choose “very important” and the remaining
four responses were “important”. The next question focused on whether or not respondent
departments had performance appraisal systems in place and whether or not those
performance appraisal systems documented leadership potential. Seventy four and four tenths
per cent of responses indicated performance appraisal systems and 25.5% did not. Of those
that did indicate their department has a performance appraisal system, 20 responded with a
definitive “yes” to the question if there is a way leadership potential is documented during the
performance appraisal with another 10 describing how it is done. Eight respondents did not
answer and 16 provided a definitive “no” to this question. When asked if their departments
provided opportunities for officers to receive leadership training prior to promotion, 44
42
indicted that they did provide opportunities for officers to receive leadership training prior to
promotion while 42 did not.
The question was then asked if leadership potential was, in fact, identified prior to
promotion and if so, how was leadership potential identified prior to promotion. A yes-or-no
forced choice answer was required for the question, “Is leadership potential identified prior to
promotion at your department?” Sixty six responded yes while 19 responded no. One chose
not to answer this question. A follow up open ended question asked, “How is leadership
potential identified prior to promotion?” By far the most common responses to this question
were observations and evaluation with 19 and 15 responses respectively. These included
responses similar to “No written policy, based on observation & discussion with other Lts,”
“First hand observations” and “Observation, performance evaluations. “ Another nine
responses indicated some type of supervisory staff discussion utilized as the manner in which
leadership potential is identified prior to promotion. These responses included similar phrases
like, “…Recommendations from other staff” and “discussed among supervisors/managers at
staff meetings”.
Moving into the area of the promotional process/decision making, the question was
asked of survey takers, “In your opinion, how effective is the current promotional system in
your department at promoting the best leaders?” Respondents were asked to express their
opinions by rating their answers on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being “Terrible (never get the best
leaders)” and 10 being “Perfect (always get the best leaders)” The average response was 6.04 of
the 76 responses. Ten chose not to respond. Interestingly, for this question the collector used
43
an open-ended format and 7 respondents chose to write a response in addition to or in place of
a numerical score. 5 of those responses indicated the “civil service system” in a negative
connotation. Another open-ended question asked respondents for their opinion regarding
what should be the most important factors in promoting an individual to a leadership position.
70 respondents answered in many different ways. The most common words used in their
answers were; “integrity/ethics” with 16 responses including those specific words, 15 responses
that included “job knowledge” either specifically or in phrases such as, “…the individual must
have complete knowledge of the department operations,” or “technical skills,” Another 12
responders indicated that a strong work ethic is one of the most important factors to consider
when promoting an individual to a leadership position. Many other responses were presented
that included communication skills, leading by example, and respect of peers among many
others.
The survey next asked if departments utilized the New York State Civil Service
promotional exams. Sixty two respondents indicated that they did utilize the civil service
promotional tests while 19 did not and 5 did not answer. Of those that did utilize the civil
service promotional tests, 37 provided opportunities for their officers to participate in test
preparation programs. The most common requirement for individuals to be eligible to take
promotional examinations was “time in grade,” in other words to be eligible to take a
promotional exam one would have to be working at a certain rank for a specified period of time
before being eligible to take the test. Fifty nine respondents indicated that time in grade was a
requirement while 3 responses indicated pre-promotional training was required; 4 indicated
44
college as a requirement while military service and “other” were also selected with 4 and 5
answers respectively.
The decision to promote was assessed next with the question. Using the following
scale: 5=the only factor considered, 4=very important, 3=important, 2=not important, 1=not
considered at all, indicate the importance of each of the following factors in the decision to
promote an individual at your department: civil service test rank, seniority, leadership
potential, oral interview score, political affiliations, staff recommendations, work history, other
(describe). Sixty six respondents indicated that civil service test rank was either important or
very important while 77 indicated that leadership potential was either important or very
important. Forty five expressed that seniority was either important or very important and 67
indicated that the oral interview score was important or very important. Staff
recommendations and work history also were weighted heavily as either important or very
important with 68 and 58 responses respectively. Political affiliations were not a major factor
in the decision to promote according to respondents who rated this category as either not
important or not considered at all.
Regardless of whether or not leadership potential is identified prior to promotion and
regardless of how the promotional process works and the decision is made, leaders in any
organization are still developed (or not). The next section of the survey dealt with how leaders
are being developed in police departments in New York State. This section began with asking
respondents their opinion regarding what the most important factors were in effective
leadership development at their agencies. The most common response was related to the civil
45
service system with 16 responses. Six of those simply stated “civil service”. Funding and
staffing levels was the next most common answer with 12. Union contracts or labor relations
regulations were mentioned by 9 respondents and another 9 indicated that
supervisor/subordinate relationships and the difficult transition from officer to supervisor were
among the most important barriers to effective leadership development. Lack of opportunities
for training with 7 responses and political interference with 5 responses also were indicated as
barriers. Twenty respondents chose not to answer this question.
Respondents were asked if their departments had a performance appraisal system for
supervisors. Sixty one indicated that they did. Twenty one answered that they did not. Most
often these appraisals occurred once per year (49 responses). They were most likely completed
by either the Chief or the individual’s immediate supervisor as all responses to this question
(56) indicated. Only 14 respondents indicated that the appraisals contained feedback from
subordinate officers and 9 contained feedback from officers of the same rank. Fifty three
responses indicated that leadership performance was assessed during the appraisal process. Of
those that indicated leadership performance was assessed the most common answer with only
6 responses indicated proper paperwork. Those who chose to respond to this question
presented such a wide range of answers that the researcher had a great deal of difficulty in
categorizing responses.
Other questions related to leadership development included whether or not
respondent’s departments provided leadership training opportunities other than a New York
State mandated basic course in police supervision and if so, how many hours of leadership
46
training did their personnel receive annually. Forty seven responses stated that “no” their
departments did not provide any leadership training other than the basic course while 35
indicated that they did. Three provided one day (8 hours or less), eleven provided between 1
and three days of training (9-24 hours) and three indicated that their departments provided
between three days and one week of leadership training annually to their leaders. Five
respondents indicated that the number of hours was not set annually but varied in length
without providing a specific range.
The survey asked respondents if their departments had formal mentoring programs for
supervisors and if they had field training programs for new supervisors.
Seventy seven
respondents indicated that they did not have a formal mentoring program while 5 stated that
they did. Sixty one responses showed that there was not a field training program for new
supervisors in respondent’s departments while 21 did.
It was asked of respondents if their departments had an internal leadership
development program. Thirteen answered in the affirmative while 68 indicated that they did
not have an internal leadership development program that addressed the need of their
department. When asked what prevented their departments from engaging in an internal
leadership development program, the overwhelming response was time, funding and
manpower. Of the 53 who chose to respond to this question, 38 indicated one, two or all three
of those as a factor that prevents their department from engaging in an internal leadership
development program. Other answers included the lack of existing programs (4), don’t know or
47
never thought about it (5), union contracts or labor issues (3), lack of commitment from senior
executives (2).
The final question of the survey was an open ended question that was provided for
respondents to, “…provide any comments you would like to share regarding leadership
development of supervisors in your department or in policing in general.” Twenty one chose
to respond and of those the most common theme was that ongoing training was important.
Nine respondents mentioned training in their answers to this final question. Two examples of
the opinion of the importance of training; “I am an advocate of continuing education.
Supervisors i.e. Sergeants are the most critical component to any agencies operation. Having
said that these individuals should be exposed to as much training as an agency can afford” and
“The department should make sure that the schedule permits for each supervisor to be able to
attend some sort of continued leadership development seminars annually if available.”
Another respondent made the following comment, “As a 21st century law enforcement
administrator it is important to offer training and experiences to up-and-comming (sic) leaders
that highlight both the science of management and the art of leadership.”
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The research question asks if leaders in police departments in New York State are “being
identified, promoted and developed consistently with best practices in the field of leadership
development.” It is important to recognize briefly what those best practices are before looking
at whether or not police leaders in New York State are being developed consistently with best
practices.
48
Based upon what many leadership authorities are suggesting, effective leadership
development is best based on a platform of skills and knowledge: what might be termed
“leadership potential.” Some authorities (Bass & Bass, 2008) (Avolio, 2011) are suggesting, and
research may support, the idea that leadership skill sets are often developed in the childhood
environment. Traits such as drive, leadership motivation, honesty and integrity, selfconfidence and other traits have been identified as, if not pre-requisites, then an appropriate
background upon which leadership development can occur. (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1995)
Business consultant and author of Good to Great, Jim Collins indicates that the most successful
leaders over time exhibit what he calls “Level 5 Leadership”. In order to get to Level 5 however,
one must understand that there is a “Level 1” and according to Collins this first level begins with
a “highly capable individual” who makes productive contributions through “talent, knowledge,
skills and good work habits”. In essence Collins is saying that good leadership development
begins with a foundation of leadership potential. Police management authorities, however, do
not necessarily put the same emphasis on leadership potential as leadership authorities do in
other areas as seen above. While the literature on police management often does recognize
the need for effective leadership and the development of leaders throughout the organization,
few identify the importance of identifying leadership skill sets prior to promotion. (Cordner,
2007) (Whisenand & Ferguson, 2002) (More, 2007) One exception to this is Nathan Iannone in
Supervision of Police Personnel who identifies “elements of leadership” that include discipline,
ethics and common sense as characteristics upon which successful leaders can build. (Iannone,
2001, p. 33)
49
The opinions of survey respondents were sought on this issue with a question asking
respondents to indicate how important they believed it was to identify leadership potential
prior to promotion. Without exception every respondent indicated that identifying leadership
potential was important, very important or critical. The survey then asked if leadership
potential was identified prior to promotion, resulting in 66 responses indicating yes it was and
19 indicating that it was not identified prior to promotion. Police commanders in New York
State do seem to support the idea that identifying leadership potential prior to promotion is
important and they are doing so for the most part. However, only slightly more than 50% (44 of
86) respondents indicated that their departments provided pre-promotion leadership training
for their officers. It would seem that department commanders, while recognizing the
importance of identifying leadership potential prior to promotion, are much less likely to send
officers to training to develop leadership skills prior to promoting an individual. Another
related question asked survey respondents to identify the most important factors that should
be considered when promoting an individual to a leadership position. The most common
responses were integrity/ethics, work ethic, communication skills and job knowledge. These
factors identified by police commanders in New York State fit very well with what other
leadership authorities have acknowledged as important baseline considerations for leadership
development. Therefore, considering proposition P1a, “Prior to promotion in police
departments in New York State, leadership potential is identified and opportunities for prepromotional leadership training is provided to officers of lower ranks,” the survey results
indicated that leadership potential is being identified prior to promotion in Police Departments
in New York State (66 respondents did identify leadership potential while 19 did not); however,
50
police departments were much less likely to provide pre-promotional leadership training
opportunities for their officers (44 of 86 respondents indicated that their departments did
provide pre-promotional leadership training opportunities).
Survey results indicated an agreement with leadership authorities on the importance of
identifying leadership potential prior to promotion and in fact respondents did indicate that this
was in fact happening in police departments in New York State. The next section of the survey
and the next logical step in the promotional process is the decision to make a promotion.
Most (62 of 86) respondents to this survey indicated that they utilized the New York
State Civil Service promotional test system. Although outside the scope of this research, a brief
description of the New York State Civil Service system as it is applicable to police departments
will be presented to give context to the issue. This is not an exhaustive treatment of the Civil
Service System in New York State but merely a brief overview of the system.
Many municipalities in New York State (including the City of Saratoga Springs where the
author is currently employed) utilize state wide job specific examinations for various
employment positions within municipal, county and state governments. These examinations
are typically developed at the state level and administered locally by various local Civil Service
Departments. A police officer in a municipal police department in New York State likely was
required to pass an entry level police officer examination prior to being hired at the
department. Once employed, if the department utilizes the Civil Service system for
promotional positions, the municipality may set qualifications for eligibility to take the exam.
For example, the Saratoga Springs Civil Service Commission has established minimum
51
requirements for a police officer to be eligible to take the examination for the position of
Sergeant. These requirements are four years employment as a police officer with the City of
Saratoga Springs, of which two years of college level full time educational post-secondary
education may earn one year credited service up to two credited years of service. The
examination announcements outline the subject matter of the examinations. The examinations
are scored and an eligible list is established. For each position available the appointing
authority is required to select one of the individuals who has scored within the highest three
scores on the examination. The information provided above is a generalized summary and
more information can be found at the New York State Department of Civil Service website,
www.cs.gov.ny. Examples of police promotional examination announcements (the 2011
Saratoga Springs Municipal Civil Service Commission announcements for Police Sergeant, Police
Lieutenant, Police Captain, Assistant Police Chief and Police Chief) are provided as Appendix A1A5.
Civil Service systems were designed to “eliminate favoritism, bias and political
influence” and attempted to ensure promotional and hiring decisions were based on objective
qualifications. (Walker, 1992, p. 368) Civil Service Commissions sought to achieve less political
influence in hiring and promotional decisions by establishing systems by which police personnel
decisions were governed by objective standards. (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, & McLaren,
1997) Like the police professionalism movement that sought to reduce line level corruption by
centralizing authority in the Chief of Police and implementing harsh discipline through rigid
command and control systems (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, & McLaren, 1997) (Walker, 1992),
civil service systems have largely reduced the level of political influence in the hiring and
52
promotional systems of police departments nationwide (Walker, 1992) (Cordner, 2007). Indeed
support for this intended outcome was found in the results of the current survey. Respondents
were asked to give their opinion regarding the importance of each of several factors in the
decision to promote an individual in their agency. The factors listed were civil service test rank,
leadership potential, seniority, oral interview score, political affiliations, staff
recommendations, work history or other. Only 5 of 81 respondents indicated that political
affiliations were important or very important factors in the decision, while 60 indicated that
political affiliations were not considered at all and 16 responded that political affiliations were
not important.
If reduction of political interference was the only measure of success for civil service
systems, then one might suggest that civil service systems could be deemed a positive force in
policing. However, when survey respondents were asked to identify what they believed to be
the most important barriers to effective leadership development the most common answer
was the civil service system. Six respondents answered this open-ended question simply, “civil
service”.
In addition, the results of the survey indicate that most police commanders believe
that leadership potential is a very important consideration in promoting and developing leaders
in their agencies. Ethics and integrity along with work ethic and communications skills were all
identified by respondents as important leadership skills to consider when making promotions.
All these items are difficult to test for with a single multiple choice style examination. A review
of Appendix A1-A5 will note that not one promotional test measures integrity or ethics. A
written examination may have considerable difficulty in measuring such topics. Job knowledge
could be measured and probably is measured by promotional examinations; however, when
53
asked what the qualifications for eligibility for promotional examinations were in their
departments, respondents indicated that “time in grade” was the most likely qualification with
59 of the 74 respondents who chose the answer the question indicating “time in grade” as a
qualification. No other choice received more than 5 responses.
It appears that there is good and bad news with regard to promoting police leaders in
New York State. First it seems as though police commanders are cognizant of the fact that
leadership potential forms an important base upon which leadership can be developed. This is
certainly consistent with what best practices in the field of leadership development are
indicating. However, the results of this survey indicate that the promotional process itself, the
civil service system, is considered by many as a barrier to effective leadership development.
While the civil service system does appear to be successful in reducing the impact of political
interference in hiring and promoting decisions in police departments as intended, the
requirements for eligibility to take the test do not necessarily match what police administrators
feel are important considerations. Additionally, written examinations can test for job
knowledge but may not be measuring what police commanders in New York State believe are
important baseline skills required for future effective leadership building, specifically ethics and
integrity, communication skills and work ethic. While this process may be viewed in a negative
light, a further examination of the promotional decision making process indicates that although
police commanders may not like how they get there, eventually they have to decide who will
get promoted from among eligible candidates and when they do, police commanders consider
factors consistent with what they believe are important. Respondents indicated that the
following considerations were considered important in the actual decision to promote:
54
leadership potential, oral interview score, staff recommendations, and work history. Each of
the above choices was indicated as either important or very important in the decision to
promote an individual by respondents at the following rates, leadership potential 95%, oral
interview score 83.9%, staff recommendations 83.9%, and work history 96%. Police
commanders may feel that the process prior to promotion is not ideal and indicate that the civil
service system is actually a hindrance to effective leadership development; however, once the
test is administered and the eligible candidates are identified, police commanders do appear to
be promoting individuals consistently with best practices in leadership development.
Proposition P1b states, “Promotional decisions in police departments in New York State
will be based on leadership potential or work history.” Given the apparent concern with the
civil service system among police commanders in New York State, police leaders are still being
promoted based upon leadership potential or work history. At the point the decision is made
political considerations and seniority alone are not factors that are apparently heavily weighted
in police departments in New York State, while leadership potential and work history are.
Even though police commanders may not get to choose who becomes eligible for
promotion, after all candidates self-select by choosing to take the promotional exam in the first
place, or a police chief may be hired from outside the agency and have no input or influence on
who forms the leadership ranks of the department, organizational success depends upon the
development of leaders. Regarding the development of personal mastery, leadership authority
Peter Senge states, “Wherever you are, start here.” (Senge P. , 1994, p. 200) The same could be
said for leadership development. Many police departments utilize performance appraisal
55
systems as personnel development tools. (Cordner, 2007) (Fyfe, Greene, Walsh, Wilson, &
McLaren, 1997) According to survey responses, a strong majority of police departments in New
York State were using performance appraisal systems for their supervisors (61 of 85 responses).
They were conducted almost exclusively either once or twice per year by the Chief or the
leader’s immediate supervisor. Most did include an assessment of leadership performance (53
of 61 responses). One common theme among both leadership authorities in general and the
field of police administration is the importance of feedback in the leadership development
process. (Posner & Kouzes, 2007) (Evans, 2008) (Senge P. M., 1990) (Cordner, 2007) (Lynch,
2005) 360 feedback systems have become a common employee development tool. (London,
Smither, & Diamante, 2007) We can find then general agreement among leadership authorities
in general and police administration authorities that feedback from a variety of sources is an
important consideration in developing leaders. However, survey respondents indicated that of
those departments that did report having a documented performance appraisal system for
supervisors, only 14 reported including feedback from subordinate officers while 47 did not. In
addition, only nine respondents indicated that their performance appraisal system for leaders
included feedback from officers of the same rank.
Proposition P1c then does not seem to be supported by the respondents of the survey.
P1c stated, “Leaders in police departments in New York State will have regular performance
appraisals that include feedback from a variety of sources including subordinate officers, and
other leaders of the same rank.” This was decidedly not the case according to respondents of
the survey. Clearly very few police departments were reported as having leader performance
appraisal systems that included feedback from subordinate officers or officers of the same rank.
56
While the survey results indicated that leadership performance was assessed during the
appraisal process, this was done generally by just one person, who in a command and control
system may not be in the best position to evaluate leadership performance. The value of
feedback from a number of sources has been stressed by many in the field of leadership.
(Collins, 2001) (Bass & Bass, 2008) (Nahavandi, 2009) (Posner & Kouzes, 2007)
The importance of the development of leaders can be seen in the millions of dollars
annually that corporations pay for leadership development and training. (Nahavandi, 2009)
Training programs have been shown to have a positive impact on leadership skills (Bass & Bass,
2008) and police performance. (Huberts, Kaptein, & Lasthuizen, 2007) Perhaps most important,
however, is the value of experiences on leadership development with the proper mentoring or
within a supportive learning environment. Bruce Avolio (p.205) in Full Range Leadership
Development states simply, “More and more, leadership development will occur in
organizations taking advantage of natural learning events” (experiences). Others stress the
importance of some type of transformative experience to the development of effective leaders.
(Bennis & Thomas, 2011) Effective mentoring and transformational leadership behaviors have
been shown to be positive influences on leader development. (Bass & Riggio, 2006) (Bass &
Bass, 2008) The United States Army has identified mentoring as an important component of
leadership development (Department of the Army, 1999) as have Harry W. More and Larry S.
Miller in their book Effective Police Supervision: Fifth Edition. A very telling statement on the
importance of mentoring and leadership development came from a survey respondent
answering the final open ended question of the survey which provided space for any comments
the respondent wished to include. This statement was, “As a female leader my role models
57
were very limited and as a result I struggled as a Sgt. for many years to learn how to be a good
leader. Once I found a mentor things changed and I improved dramatically. Mentoring
combined with education will develop leaders. We need to do a lot more. Being a supervisor
has almost been like the police training of 30 yrs (sic) ago - ok kid you're now a cop, here's your
gun so go do your job. Supervision has been - ok kid here's your Sgt. stripes now go be a leader,
oh by the way we'll give you a worthless state mandated training some time (sic) within the
next year. We need to move beyond finding those with leadership potential into taking that
potential & developing it.”
Proposition P1d was not supported by the survey results in that less than half of survey
responses indicted that their department had formal mentoring for leaders, a field training
program for newly promoted leaders or leadership training other than the state mandated
course in police supervision. P1d stated: “Police departments in New York State will develop
their leaders with a variety of development efforts including formal mentoring, field training
programs and on-going leadership training in addition to the state mandated basic course in
police supervision.” Only five respondents indicated that their departments had a formal
mentoring program, while 77 indicated that they did not. Only 21 departments had field
training programs in place for new supervisors, while 61 reported that they did not. Continuing
leadership training was indicated by 35 respondents, while 47 indicated they did not offer
leadership training outside of the basic state mandated course. Of those 35 positive responses,
none provided more than 40 hours annually, while the vast majority provided between 8 and
24 hours per year.
58
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The one obvious weakness of this research is the lack of ability to follow up with
respondents. By not collecting identifiers, the study did make respondents feel secure
answering the survey knowing that their rating of the overall leadership of their department
was confidential. On the other hand, the question of “why” is not answered for many of the
results of the survey. Many of the questions left obvious room for follow up questions that
could not be asked. The survey respondents can indicate that they do not provide prepromotional training opportunities, yet the survey did not allow for an explanation so logical
follow up questions were not asked. Did police chiefs believe that they could determine
“natural leaders” pre-promotion? Is the cost prohibitive? Is there reluctance on the part of
senior leaders, as Iannone suggests, because they had never been exposed to leadership
training themselves? (Iannone, 2001, p. 28)
Another acknowledgement must be made regarding my presuppositions. Obviously this
research was chosen because of my current profession; however, there can be little doubt that
no matter how conscious of the issue, I am certain that at some point pre-conceived notions
about the subject managed to creep into the project. As much as I would like to proclaim
complete and total objectivity I also understand that my personal biases are somewhere to be
found throughout the research whether that is in the form of the topic itself, the question
asked on the survey, the literature chosen or any of a number of areas throughout the effort. I
have no difficulty admitting that after eighteen years of living in the world of policing I have
ideas and biases about “how it all works” and during this research I was surprised at times by
59
what I discovered. Some of the data confirmed what I assumed all along while other points I
struggled to comprehend within my pre-conceived paradigms. I hope that I was able to set
aside my personal beliefs long enough to obtain an understanding and present the data in as
objective a manner as possible, though I know that I struggled to do so at times.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The apparent importance of the civil service system should be further studied, in my
opinion. Are police departments merely promoting the best of the best test-takers and not
necessarily the best leaders? There seemed to be some sentiment that they are and that this
may be a barrier, at least in the minds of executive officers, to developing leaders to maximum
potential. Are the best leaders being left in their current positions because the civil service test
is not designed for, nor is it accurately identifying, the best leaders? This question would need
to be addressed in a far more rigorous manner than it was in this research in order to make any
definitive claim one way or another. Although outside the scope of this research project and
not intended at the outset, looking at a comparison between departments that utilized the civil
service system and the opinion of the respondent of how they rated the overall leadership at
their departments indicated an interesting possible correlation. Of those departments that
indicated use of the civil service system for promotions, the respondent rated the overall
leadership at an average of 7.11 using a scale with 1 being terrible and 10 being excellent.
Those 19 respondents who did not indicate that they utilized the civil service system in the
promotional process rated their overall leadership at 7.89. This slight difference could be an
area ripe for further study. This simple correlation should not be considered as being
60
researched with any amount of vigor but merely an indication that there may in fact be
something to the assertion that the civil service system is a barrier to effective leadership
development.
The underlying reasons for a lack of mentoring and training should also be pursued. This
apparent deficiency is not adequately addressed in this study, particularly with the indication
that respondents realize the importance of it. Where is leadership training and development in
the pecking order of all the possible training areas a police department must cover? Is informal
mentoring getting the job done for police executives? As a practical matter, is funding available
or do training events even exist that would meet the leadership development needs of police
departments?
The importance of obtaining feedback from a variety of sources is critical to the
development of leaders. This area could need further study as the survey identified only that
this was not happening but did not attempt to address why. The absence of this practice may
be a product of the traditional model of policing with a strong emphasis on the chain of
command. Would there be, or is there, considerable resistance within a command and control
structure to the “voices” of subordinate officers? In a command and control system, is it
realistic to expect a higher ranking officer to know the leader they are rating is having a positive
effect on the motivation of their subordinates without subordinate feedback?
CONCLUSIONS
The essential research question of whether or not leaders in police departments in New
York State are being developed consistently with best practices in the field of leadership
61
received a mixed verdict, according to the propositions. First, survey respondents were in
agreement with many authorities on the issue of the importance of identifying leadership
potential prior to promotion. Yet police departments did not appear to be “putting their
money where their mouth is” in that barely more half of respondents indicated that their
departments provided pre-promotion leadership training.
In examining the promotional decision we again saw that respondents were in
agreement with best practices regarding what factors should be considered when deciding to
promote an individual to a leadership position. Unfortunately, many respondents felt that the
current civil service system itself was an impediment to leadership development; they also
indicated that they remained true to their beliefs in general that leaders should be promoted
based upon leadership potential and work history. One could argue that there is good and bad
news. The good news is that police commanders are indicating that the civil service system is
working as intended, at least in terms of reducing the influence of political interference in
promotional decisions. The bad news is that police commanders may only choose from the
three highest scoring applicants on the promotional examinations (at least in the departments
that utilize the civil service system) and that they may be choosing from among the three
people in the department who may have the least leadership capability but were able to score
the highest on a particular examination.
That feedback from a variety of sources is an important component to leadership
development is stressed by many leadership experts and has been seen throughout this report.
However, this practice was not being implemented by respondents who indicated that while a
62
heavy majority did in fact assess leadership performance during performance appraisals of
leaders, very few included subordinate feedback or feedback from officers of the same rank.
Leadership development efforts in police departments in New York State seem to be
haphazard at best. Survey data indicated very little formal mentoring, field training or even
continuing training for leaders. Indeed less than half of respondent departments provided
continuing leadership training beyond the state mandated basic course. Of those that did, the
majority provided 24 hours or less of annual leadership training. Some leadership experts
advise providing leaders and future leaders with opportunities for varied assignments so that
they may establish a wide range of experience while at the same time providing the leader with
effective mentoring or coaching to provide context and support in order to learn from the
experiences. (McCall & Hollenbeck, 2007) (Avolio, 2011) (Bass & Bass, 2008) The very
complexity and diversity of police experiences should offer leaders interested in developing
personnel a fertile arena for properly supported development. And it would appear even more
important to the police leader not to be “left alone to figure it out” given the difficulty of
leading the complex and strong subculture (Crank, 2004) of police and all of the paradoxes of
working in the policing environment (Perez, 2011). Studies of police leaders indicate lack of
training and mentors are important barriers to effective police leadership development
(Schafer J. A., Developing Effective Leadership in Policing: Perils, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward,
2009) and that a more transformational leadership style is preferred by police managers.
(Andreescu & Vito, 2010) This study did not address why there is an apparent lack of mentoring
and training for police leaders in New York State; it only identified that there appears to be little
mentoring and a lack of continuing leadership training by a majority of police departments in
63
New York State. Though there does not appear to be widespread continuing leadership training
for police leaders in New York State, command level officers seem to recognize the importance
of training. Of the twenty one respondents to the survey who chose to write something in the
space provided for them to make any statement they wanted to on the subject of leadership
development, eleven mentioned training. Several examples include, “As a 21st century law
enforcement administrator it is important to offer training and experiences to up-and-coming
(sic) leaders that highlight both the science of management and the art of leadership,” “these
individuals should be exposed to as much training as an agency can afford…” and “I think it
would be helpful to see a regional support or trainin (sic) on same.” It is not merely enough
that police leaders live through their experiences without learning from them. Mentoring and
training seem to be supporting elements of learning from experience and this premise does not
appear lost on police commanders in New York State.
There are two final points that I feel compelled to make, one an encouragement and
one an understandable disappointment. First I was encouraged that despite the negative
connotation that the civil service system apparently had among survey respondents, they did
appear to be making promotions based upon what they believed to be important
considerations. They may not like the restriction of having to choose their future leaders from
among the highest three finishers on the promotional examinations, but when they do, they do
so consistently with what they believe. The disappointment was in the low number of
departments that have mentoring, field training or continuing training for their leaders.
Despite an acknowledgement from most police administration authorities regarding the
importance of leadership in policing, fewer than half of those in this survey provide continuing
64
leadership training and fewer still are field training and formally mentoring their leaders. It
should be helpful, however, to take a step back and look at the larger picture of managing and
leading a police department. No matter how important a police chief may believe leadership
development is for the long term success of his or her department, he or she exists in a very
day-to-day real life environment. Long term police chiefs may need excellent leaders, but they
may also need to spend their training budget on targeted enforcement for an exploding drug
problem – yesterday. Leadership development is a never ending endeavor, but the Chief of
Police may be forced to respond to a civil rights lawsuit, or a corruption scandal that requires
extremely rigid leadership behaviors which are not necessarily conducive to effective leadership
development. Leadership in a dynamic, fast-paced and complex environment that is the world
of the police leader can be done; the difficulty is in skillfully providing rigid or supportive
leadership strategies in the time and place required. Knowing and applying the appropriate
strategy is the key to effective leadership. We must keep the complexities of the police leader’s
environment in mind when we consider the issue of leadership development in police
departments in New York State.
65
Bibliography
(2000). Report of the Rampart Independent review Panel.
Andreescu, V., & Vito, G. F. (2010). An Exploratory Study on Ideal Leaderhip Behavior: The Opinions of
American Police Managers. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 12(4), 567583. doi:10.1350/ijps.2010.12.4.207
Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. (2009). Leadership Development Framework for the
Scottish Police Service. Glasgow, Scotland: Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
Avolio, B. J. (2011). Full Range Leadership Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership, Second Edition. New York: Psychology
Press.
Bass, B., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass Handbook of Leadership; Theory, Research and Managerial
Applications, 4th Edition. New York: Free Press.
Bennis, W. G., & Thomas, R. J. (2011). Crucibles of Leadership. In H. B. Review, Barvard Businees
Review's 10 Must Reads on Leadership (pp. 97-113). Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Bratton, R. S. (2008, Fall). Succession Planning and Staff Development. Big Ideas for Smaller Police
Departments, pp. 1-5.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Haper & Row.
Carpenter, M., & Fulton, R. (2010). Law Enforcement Management: What Works and What Doesn't.
Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications.
Collins, J. (2001). Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...and Others Don't. New York:
Harper Collins.
Cordner, G. W. (2007). Police Administation, 6th edition. Newark: Anderson Publishing.
Cowper, T. J. (2000, September). The Myth of the "Military Model" of Leadership in Law Enforcement.
Police Quarterly, 3(3), 228-246.
Crank, J. P. (2004). Understanding the Culture of Police. Anderson Publishing.
Creswell. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd
Edition . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Department of the Army. (1999). Army Leadership, Field Manual FM 22-100. Washington DC: United
States Army.
66
Dunham, R. G., & Alpert, G. P. (2001). Criticasl issues in Policing (4th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press.
Enter, J. (2006). Challenging the Law Enforcement Organization. USA: Narrow Road Press.
Evans, J. R. (2008). Quality and Performance Excellence. Canada: South Western.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking Data. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
Fyfe, J. J., Greene, J. R., Walsh, W. F., Wilson, O., & McLaren, R. C. (1997). Police Administration, Fifth
Edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Gilmartin, K. (2002). Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement. Tuscon: E-S Press.
Gross, R. J. (2005, Winter). Exonerations in the United States 1989-2003. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminalogy, 95(2), 523-559, 555-560. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218403709?accountid=13215
Hakim, C. (1987). Research Design; Strategies and Choices in the Design of Social Research. London: Allen
and Unwin, Ltd.
Huberts, L., Kaptein, M., & Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study of the impact of three leadership styles on
integrity violations committed by police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police
Strategies and management, 587-607.
Iannone, N. F. (2001). Supervision of Police Personnel. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (1999). Police Leadership in the 21st Century: Acheiving and
Sustaining Executive Success . Alexandria, VA: Internatioanl Association of Chiefs of Police.
International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2004). Police Chiefs Desk Reference - A Guide for newly
Promoted Police Leaders. Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1995). Leadership: Do Traits Matter? In T. J. Wren, The Leader's
Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages (pp. 133-143). New York: The Free Press.
Klockars, C. B. (1985). The Idea of Police. Newbury Park: Sage.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J. P. (2011). What Leaders Really Do. In H. B. Review, HBR's 10 Must Reads on Leadership (pp. 3755). Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
London, M., Smither, J. W., & Diamante, T. (2007). Best Practices in Leadership Assessment. In J. R.
Conger, & R. E. Riggio, The Practice of Leadership (pp. 41-63). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lynch, R. G. (2005). The Police Manager 6th edition. United States: Anderson Publishing.
67
Malone, D. M. (1983). Small Unit Leadership. New York: Presidio Press.
McCall, M. W., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (2007). Getting Leader Development Right. In J. A. Conger, & R. E.
Riggio, The Practice of Leadership (pp. 87-106). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
More, H. W. (2007). Effective Police Supervision, 5th ed. United States: Anderson Publishing.
Morse, J. M., & Niehaus, L. (2009). Mixed Method Design, Principles and Procedures. Walnut Creek, CA:
Left Coast Press.
Muir, W. K. (1977). Police: Streetcorner Politicians. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Murphy, S. A. (2008). The role of emotions and transformational leadership on police culture: an
autoethnographic account. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 165-178.
doi:10.1350/ijps.2008.10.2.78
Nahavandi, A. (2009). The Art and Science of Leadership, 5th Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Prentice Hall.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur-Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated
Approach. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Perez, D. W. (2011). Paradoxes of Police Work, 2nd edition. United States: Delmar Cengage Learning .
Posner, J., & Kouzes, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge, 4th Edition. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
Putney, D. M., & Holmes, C. L. (2008, Ocotber). Designing a law Enforcement Leadership Development
Program. The Police Chief: The Professional Voice of Law Enforcement.
Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983). Two Cultures of Policing, Street Cops and Management Cops. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Rowe, M. (2006). Following the Leader: Front Line Narratives on Police Leadership. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 29(4), 757-767.
doi:http//dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510610711646
Salkind, N. J. (2009). Exploring Research, 7th Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Schafer, J. A. (2008, July). Effective Police Leadership. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, pp. 13-19.
Schafer, J. A. (2009). Developing Effective Leadership in Policing: Perils, Pitfalls, and Paths Forward.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 32(2), 238-260.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639510910958163
Schafer, J. A. (2010). The Ineffective Police Leader: Acts of Commission and Omission. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 38, 737-746. doi:http://10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.04.048
Schenectady County Grand Jury. (2007). Findings of Fact and Recommendations. Schenectady.
68
Senge, P. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, The Art and practice of the Learning Organization. USA:
Doubleday.
Shane, J. M. (2010). Organizational Stressors and Police Performance. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
807-818. doi:10.1016/j.crimjus.2010.05.008
Steinheider, B., & Wuestewald, T. (2008). From the Bottom-Up: Sharing Leadership in a Police Agency.
Police Practice and Research, 145-163. doi:10.1080/15614260802081303
Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting Online Surveys. Quality and Quantity, 40(3), 435456. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-05-8081-8
Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. W. (2006). Conducting Online Surveys. Quality and Quantity, 40(3), 435456. doi:10.1007/s11135-05-8081-8
Walker, S. (1992). The Police in America, An Introduction Second Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Whisenand, P. M., & Ferguson, F. R. (2002). The Managing of Police Organizations. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Wiggins, B. J. (2011). Confronting the Dilemma of MIxed Methods. Journal of Theoretical and
Philosophical Psychology, 44-60. doi:10.1037/a0022612
Wikman, A. (2005). Reliability, Validity and True Values in Surveys. Social Indicators Research, 85-110.
doi:10.1007/s11205-005-5372-3
Williams, B. N., & Kellough, E. J. (2006). Leadership with an Enduring Impact: The Legacy of Chief Burtell
Jefferson of the Metropoliyan Police Department of Washington, D.C. . Public Administration
review, 813-822.
69