52275457 Leadership Theories and Practice

Leadership Theories and Change 1

Running Head: Leadership Theories and Change

A Review of Leadership Theories and Possible Changes to Police Leadership

Randy L. Conyers

University of Central Florida


Abstract

Throughout the history of law enforcement, leaders have used many different styles to

lead employees. From the early styles of Autocratic and Laissez-Faire to Participative

(democratic), Transactional and Transformational leadership. Leadership within policing has

evolved over the years in some organizations to a more participative style and yet there are still

leaders who cling to an antiquated domineering style.

The purpose of this paper identified trait theories, leadership theories and change

strategies that have molded or are molding the policing culture. Change must occur if the culture

of police organizations are going to meet the demands of the 21st century and several issues

affecting this change were discussed. An in-depth review of the transactional and

transformational styles of leadership was seen as being the styles that a leader in the 21st century

would want to use to meet the needs of their employees and motivate them toward success and

self-actualization.

Although no empirical research is completed in this paper, the literature reviewed and

previous research indicate that the transformational style of leadership augments the

transactional style, but not vise versa. It also emphasizes that leaders need to become more

transformational toward employees and allow them to participate in the decision-making process.

As more leadership research is continued, the following research question is proposed for future

study: To what extent would an exclusive transformational leadership style in police

organizations have on rank structure and promotions?


A Review of Leadership Theories and Possible Changes to Police Leadership

I. Introduction

Organizations, including law enforcement agencies, require leadership. Dependable and

apposite leadership is crucial to the success of any organization (Spinelli, 2006). Leaders aspire

for change in people toward a desired goal. Lussier & Achua (2004) insisted that leadership was

a procedure that not only influenced employees, but leaders as well, to accomplish the goals of

the organization through change. Leadership entwines leaders-employees, influence,

organizational objectives, change and people. Leading involves people. Everyone is leading

someone somewhere, but the question is where and how. In order to be a good leader one must

be a good employee. Many scholars define leadership as one who plans, directs, or guides

people toward a mutual goal. Hesser (1999) noted, “Leadership has two component parts,

personal and organizational. Success, over time, demands knowledge of and commitment to

both”. Spinelli (2006) describes a successful leader as being accountable and suitable.

Leadership has been described as an influence relationship among leaders and employees who

intend real changes and outcomes that reflect their shared purposes (Daft, 2005). The qualities

for effective leadership and followership are the same (Daft). The basis for good leadership is a

respectable personality and unselfish service to employees and the organization (Clark, 1997).

“The best leaders are those who are deeply interested in others and can bring out the best in

them” (Daft).


Kouzes & Posner (2007) add that exemplary leadership comes from modeling the way, inspiring

a shared vision, challenging the process, enabling others to act and encouraging hearts.

Leadership in the law enforcement culture has changed over the decades, but must

continue to change in order to address modern day problems. The purpose for this paper is to

examine police leadership from a historical and empirical standpoint and discuss possible

theories for change. An in-depth review of the advantages and disadvantages of two leadership

theories (transactional and transformational) are explored as well as the possible outcomes of

each.

Leadership Traits and Characteristics

An important characteristic of leadership is using human talents to grow performance,

trust and integrity in employees and the organization (Daft, 2005). One’s personality plays a

major role in the way they lead. Personality is a combination of traits (distinguishing personal

characteristics) that classifies an individual’s behavior. Personality affects conduct as well as

insight and attitudes. Knowing personalities helps explain and forecast others’ behavior and job

performance (Lussier & Achua, 2004). The Big Five Model of Personality assesses whether a

person is stronger in surgency, agreeableness, adjustment, conscientiousness, or openness to

experience.

Surgency includes leadership and extraversion traits (Lussier & Achua, 2004). The need

for power compares to the Big Five dimension of surgency. People with a high need for power

are depicted as wanting to control situations and enjoy competition in which they can win

because they do not like to lose.


They lean toward being ambitious and have a lower need for affiliation. They are more

concerned with influencing other people than they are with what other people think about them

(Lussier & Achua,).

Extraversion is the extent that a person is outgoing, sociable, talkative, and relaxed in meeting

and talking with new people. A person with high marks in surgency wants to be in charge and

have influence over others (Daft, 2005). Influencing is the ability of the leader to communicate

ideas effectively to employees so employees will not only accept these ideas but motivate them

to implement needed changes.

Agreeableness is the trait of being able to get along with other people. Some behaviors

that characterize agreeableness are being good-natured, cooperative, forgiving, and

compassionate, understanding and trusting (Daft, 2005). The need for affiliation compares to the

Big Five dimension of agreeableness. They are socially motivated and seek close relationships

whether in a group setting or with personal friends. They are more concerned with what other

people think about them than influencing other people (Lussier & Achua, 2004).

Adjustment is commonly referred to as emotional stability. This trait shows the level that

people are well-adjusted, calm and secure (Daft, 2005).

Conscientiousness includes traits related to achievement (Lussier & Achua, 2004).

People with a high need for achievement take responsibility for solving problems, are goal

oriented, seek challenges, strive for excellence, desire concrete feedback on their performance

and work hard. They perform well in non-routine, challenging, and competitive situations

(Lussier & Achua). Conscientiousness also shows how well a person is responsible, dependable,

and persistent.


This trait is more concerned with tasks to be completed rather than relationships (Daft, 2005).

Openness to experience relates to a person being willing to change, try new things,

imaginative, creative and having a broader range of interests (Daft, 2005).

Kouzes & Posner (2007) described how credibility is the foundation of leadership:

Everyone wants to be fully confident in their leaders, and to be fully confident they have

to believe that their leaders are individuals of strong character and solid integrity.

To be credible in action, leaders must be clear about their beliefs; they must know what

they stand for. Then they must put what they say into practice: they must act on their

beliefs and “do”.

A leader can not model the way nor enable others to act if they are not seen as being honest and

trustworthy (Kouzes & Posner). Honesty is seen as the utmost important characteristic between

leaders and employees. Being proud of where one works, perceived as a team member, valuing

the values of the organization, having a sense of belongingness and ownership are benefits of a

credible leader. Unmotivated or motivated only for money, low production, criticizing the

organization, looking for another job and having a feeling of being unappreciated are

characteristics of a leader that has lost credibility (Kouzes & Posner). If a leader is found to be

dishonest, they lose respect among the employees which leads to a loss of motivation and over

time the employee loses self-respect (Kouzes & Posner).

Past Practices in Police Leadership

The English Parliament passed the Metropolitan Police Act in 1829. The passage of this

act created the London Metropolitan Police which became the model for American policing.


This model of policing was based upon a highly centralized command and bureaucratically

controlled organization which was used by the military’s leadership. This leadership established

a hierarchical authoritarian organization that instilled impersonality into the structure (Fyfe,

Greene, Walsh, Wilson & McLaren, 1997). The first American city that tried to implement this

style of policing was New York in 1851. Strecher (as cited in Fyfe, et al., 1997) notes that New

York’s attempt to use a strong central authority style of leadership was negated due to political,

social and economic forces. This particular style of leadership had a crippling effect on the

communication process and the amount of risks that patrol officers would be involved (Smith,

2008). Most of the leaders during this time were appointed because of who they were or where

they came from.

The bureaucratic-efficiency model used in the early twentieth century continued to use

the military command but added the component of scientific management. Not much changed

with this style of leadership because leaders still had total control through a centralized and an

inflexible chain of command structure in order to achieve overall organizational efficiency.

Leaders were usually promoted based on longevity and experience and not on the characteristics

they offer as leaders. Scientific management was a result of the Industrial Revolution. Leaders

would scientifically develop what would be expected of the worker and then teach and train them

how to do their jobs. The downfall of this model was the lack of interest in the worker (Fyfe, et

al., 1997). All of these models focused on the leadership at the top and nothing on the officers at

the bottom. This led to officers being told what, when and how to do tasks instead of

empowering them to make decisions for themselves (Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008).


Ginger (2003) blamed the failed leadership on being unable to delegate or understand the sense

of urgency, an unwillingness to consider alternatives and autocracy. As police leadership

evolved over the years it was ultimately classified as being Autocratic, Laissez-Faire or

Democratic. Autocratic leadership is concerned with giving orders to accomplish a task quickly.

Autocratic leadership is when employees are told what to do, how to do it, when to do it and then

are watched to make sure it is done. Laissez-Faire leadership allows a group of people to make

decisions on their own, but gives no guidance (Lussier & Achua, 2004). Democratic leadership

involves a group of people making decisions with guidance from the leader. Democratic

leadership encourages participation in decisions, facilitates discussion so everyone will know

what to do and then allows them to do their jobs without close supervision (Professional

Organizations, n.d.). Conventional police leadership is primarily protective of their power and

skeptical of officer independence (Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2006).

Present Practices in Police Leadership

The literature indicates that present leadership practices are mixed throughout various

police organizations. The researchers suggest that present police leadership practices are either

the same as they always have been or changing.

Fyfe, et al. (1997), notes that present police leadership still resembles a military style of

leadership. Silverstri (2007) agrees there is minimal verification that police leadership practices

are shifting. Most police organizations continue to foster their centralized culture through the

use of hierarchy and rank. This in and of itself continues to produce quasi-militaristic officers

who are disciplined and follow orders within a bureaucracy.


This type of control reminds officers that they are just subordinates and have a distinct place

within the organization. Silvestri (2007) emphasizes that today’s police leadership is unwilling

to share information within the organization and rarely allows others to participate in decision-

making opportunities. The philosophy of the twenty-first century police leader is one of being

strong, assertive, competitive, performance based and unreceptive to change.

Conversely, Wuestewald & Steinheider (2006) report police leadership is progressively

developing from an autocratic, centralized style that was based on wisdom, integrity and courage

to that of one that embraces teamwork, involvement, and shared leadership. The researchers

assert that police organizations are allowing more supervision from the bottom up and less direct

control. “Modern police administration is more about ‘winning the hearts and minds’ of the

police force,” claimed Skogan & Hartnett (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008). This

philosophy was a by-product of the concept of community policing. According to the

International Association of Chiefs of Police [IACP] (1999), the use of a participatory leadership

style has taken root because command and control have damaged productivity and morale.

As one can see, there are varying opinions on whether police leadership has really

changed or remained the same. The literature points to different styles of leadership as being the

crux for change.

II. Leadership Theories and Styles

Leadership style is the combination of traits, skills, and behaviors leaders use as they

interact with employees (Lussier & Achua, 2004). In order for one to favor a leadership style,

one must understand where the leadership styles originated. Throughout the years, the topic of

leadership has been debated.


However, research indicates that certain characteristics or traits are inherent in leaders (Murphy,

2005).

According to research, the 1940’s proffered leaders as maintaining certain traits. These

traits were based on physical and personality characteristics as well as intelligence and

interpersonal skills (Steers, Porter, & Bigley, 1996). Marquis & Huston (2000) associated the

Great Man Trait Theory with that of the Aristotelian philosophy, which indicated that leaders

were born and not made and depending on the need a leader would surface.

The limitations of trait theory are that leaders can not be developed through their skills and

education (as cited in Murphy, 2005).

In contrast with trait theories, the behavioral methodology centered on the recognizable

actions that made a person an effective leader (Wright, 1996). Personal Behavior Theories

discussed in the University of Michigan and Ohio State University studies identified two more

Styles of Leadership: job-centered (task) and employee-centered (people). The job-centered

(task-initiating structure) behavior focuses on the leader taking control in order to get the job

done and the employee-centered (people-consideration) behavior focuses on the leader meeting

the needs of employees and developing relationships (Lussier & Achua, 2004). The findings in

the Michigan study indicated that leaders who were highly employee oriented and allowed

participation fostered more productive teams. On the other hand, leaders who were more

concerned about accomplishing tasks cultivated lower producing teams. The findings from the

Ohio State University study emphasized the consideration and initiating structure as the two

underlying structures found in the University of Michigan study.


The Ohio State University study concluded that both structures were separate components, but if

a leader were dedicated in both they could achieve higher results (Murphy, 2005). Research at

the University of Iowa expounded on the studies above and identified two basic leadership

styles: Autocratic and Democratic. These and other research studies asserted four (4) main

leadership styles: concern for task, concern for people, Directive Leadership and Participative

Leadership (Wright, 1996).

Fiedler (1967) explored the idea that there was not just one ultimate style of leadership

for a given circumstance, but leaders would be more effective by varying their leadership style

depending on the situations that faced them. Fiedler’s Model based leadership styles on either

being task or relationship oriented and the style use depended on whether the situation was one

of leader-member relations, task structure or position power (as cited in Murphy, 2005).

Hersey and Blanchard theorized that the style of leadership was determined by the employee’s

perceptions. Hersey and Blanchard’s theory expounded on Fiedler’s model by creating four (4)

leadership styles: Directing, Coaching, Supporting and Delegating (Murphy, 2005). Building on

the same principles of the contingency theories above, House (1971) suggested that the path-

goal theory influences and motivates employee’s views and opportunities. Employee

contentment, accomplishment of goals and improved functioning would be derived from the

leader’s direction, training, guidance and support. Despite the findings of this research, Marquis

& Huston (2000) disagreed and noted that situational theory focused on the situation rather than

the interpersonal and intrapersonal factors.

The following leadership styles are derivatives of the ones discussed above.


This research paper will examine Autocratic, Laissez-Faire, Participative (democratic),

Transactional and Transformational leadership.

Autocratic Leadership

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary defines an autocrat as “a person (as a monarch)

ruling with unlimited authority or one who has undisputed influence or power”

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocrat). This style of leadership is considered

job-centered as identified by the University of Michigan and Ohio State University studies.

The job-centered (task-initiating structure) behavior focuses on the leader taking control in order

to get the job done quickly. It relies heavily on employees taking orders from the leader instead

of the leader offering much clarification or dialogue (Professional Organizations, n.d.).

According to a (University of Central Florida [UCF], (n.d.) study, employees are inspired

through threat of correction and reprimand. The autocratic leadership style offers several

advantages: swiftness of project completion keeps group members from producing alternatives

that influence the minority negatively, guarantees the leader is heard and informs members when

their conduct is undesirable. The disadvantages of the autocratic leadership style are: dissociates

group members, non-development of employees and convenience of use instead of round tabling

quandaries (Professional Organizations, n.d.). One might use this style of leadership when the

group is in danger of not accomplishing a task in a timely manner or in a crisis situation

(Murphy, 2005).

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocrat


Laissez-Faire Leadership

The Laissez-Faire leadership style frequently has a negative connotation. This style of

leadership depicts an inert leader who is averse to stimulating subordinates or giving focus

(Deluga, 1990).

The Laissezz-Faire leadership style places an emphasis on the employee centered attribute that

was discussed in the University of Michigan and Ohio State University studies (Professional

Organizations, n.d.). Leaders who use this style fail their employees because they offer no

positive or negative direction nor do they interfere at any time (Webb, 2007). According to

Deluga (1990), Laissezz-Faire leaders renounce their leadership thus giving employees a wide

spectrum of decision-making which could lead to amplifying their power and influence.

Another assessment of research reported these leaders shun goal-setting, opportunities to

succeed, fail to coordinate organizational objectives, ignore responsibilities, and routinely avoid

making decisions on important matters (van Eeden, Cilliers, & van Deventer, 2008). Leaders

assume the employees will make decisions in a timely manner and handle whatever problems

that arise (Professional Organizations, n.d.).

There are some advantages and disadvantages of using this style of leadership. It allows

team members to develop a working relationship in an informal setting and generates an

opportunity to be successful by making their own decisions. On the other hand, a team member

can dominate and take control which could lead the team to make incorrect decisions and

possibly have the team reprimanded which would lead to negativity within the group; affecting

the process and their motivation (Professional Organizations, n.d.). This absence of leadership

leads to nothing happening which promotes ineffective leadership (McGuire & Kennerly, 2006).


Participative (Democratic) Leadership

A participative leader must have a pioneering, imaginative and adventuresome mindset in

order to empower employees to make decisions involving the organization (Smith, 2008).

Participative leaders empower their employees in the decision-making process by meeting with

them periodically and listening and trusting them (UCF, n.d.). Wolf, Boland & Aukerman

(1994b) defined empowerment as “the awareness of a person’s potential talents, gifts, and power

and how a person can contribute to the organization’s goals (as cited in Thyer, 2003).

Participative leadership requires and encourages participation from everyone and shares

decision-making for the betterment of the organization. Employee motivation is derived through

obtaining financial and self-image awards. Leaders reward employees through financial gains

and positive evaluations which in turn increases motivation and morale (Murphy, 2005).

The research contends there are some advantages and disadvantages to using this style of

leadership. Skogan (2006) noted that leaders who allowed employees to participate in decision-

making showed improvement in labor-management relations, encouraged employee

commitment, enhanced community service, and diminished employee rejections of police

restructuring (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008). Research provides a plethora of

findings for implementing participative leadership such as: increased occupational contentment,

organizational allegiance, an organizational ownership behavior, apparent support, labor-

management collaboration and employee performance (Steinheider & Wuestewald). Smith

(2008) suggested that the police rank structure impeded this style of leadership. Furthermore, the

police organizational system has embedded a culture of risk aversion by continuing in a

hierarchical structure.


The researcher suggested that since the hierarchical system promoted employees to rank that it

actually blocked participation at different levels within the organization due to a lack of trust or

experience. Other researchers suggest that some have been left out of the decision-making

process by allowing employees to participate at a suggestion level or their discretionary decision-

making on the street. Labor unions have increased their control within the police organization,

but have not been included in the decision-making process. Flynn (2004) and Skogan (2004)

contend these labor unions are not being asked to help in the decision-making process because of

the hierarchical ethos of the police organization and the selfishness of the labor unions (as cited

in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008). Ospina & Yaroni (2003) suggested that labor union

representatives and police leaders only cooperate with each other when there is a critical

situation (as cited in Steinheider & Wuestewald, 2008).

Transactional Leadership

Burns (1978) and Bass (1985) portrayed a transactional leader as one whom:

(1) recognizes what it is one wants to get from his/her work and tries to see that

one gets what his/her wants if performance warrants it; (2) exchanges rewards

and promises of reward for effort; and (3) is responsive to one’s immediate

self-interests if they can be met by getting the work done (as cited in A. Chan

& E. Chan, 2005).

Bolden, Gosling, Marturano, & Dennison, (2003) presented that employees are inspired through

the use of recompense and chastisement (as cited in Taylor, 2009). Taylor (2009) asserts that

employees are held accountable regardless of competency or resource availability.


Transactional theories of leadership assert that people will follow leaders who are inspirational.

The leader will develop a vision (possibly collaboratively), sell the vision and lead the way

(Taylor, 2009). van Eeden et al (2008) defined transactional leadership as a transactional process

between the leader and employee. Hartog, Van Muijen & Koopman (1997) added that the

leader-employee relationship not only involves exchanges, but bargaining as well. Deluga

(1990) supported this by stating that leaders and/or employees can exercise a significant amount

of control and influence over one another during this exchange and bargaining process.

Pettigrew (1972) and Mechanic (1962) stated “a leader’s control over vital information or an

employee’s special skill in solving crucial organizational problems provides each participant

leverage from which to negotiate” (as cited in Deluga, 1990). The overall success of the

organization depends on whether the leader has the power to strengthen the process in which

work is completed by staff (Jogulu & Wood, 2007). McGuire & Kennerly (2006) report that

transactional leaders are only interested in maintaining the “status quo” for their organizations.

Transactional leaders are known to establish performance specifications and make sure they are

accomplished by a given deadline, limit the contentment of employees and create a low amount

of employee commitment.

Transactional leadership is divided into three distinct processes that influence employees:

active management by exception, passive management by exception and contingent reward (van

Eeden et al., 2008). In the case of active management by exception, the leader looks for

mistakes, indiscretions, exceptions, divergence from standards, complaints, infractions of policy

and regulations, and failures and he or she takes corrective action before or when these occur

(van Eeden et al., 2008).


A non-listening, reactive leader who does nothing to curb foreseeable errors or problems is

considered to be leading by the passive management exception (van Eeden et al., 2008). Leaders

identify the outcomes (reward or punishment) that will be bestowed based upon the employee’s

performance (van Eeden et al.). Leaders using contingency rewards engage the path-goal theory

that was outlined by House (1971) because it rewards and motivates employees based on

performance (Bass, 1997). Contingency rewards used in transactional leadership use

contingency rewards for employees when they attain pre-set goals and objectives (Murphy,

2005). Chan & Chan (2005) suggested employees receive rewards for accomplishments,

proposals to augment pay and promotion, or praise for superior hard work. Webb (2007)

contends that a leader who recognizes the attributes of their employees will assign tasks that will

allow the employee to accomplish the mission and obtain their just reward which in turn will

motivate them to do more. Webb (2007) indicated there was an optimistic association between

contingent rewards and organizational results.

Transactional leadership has more shortcomings than merit. Rugieri (2009) contends that a

transactional leader is more commanding, has high confidence and is usually more fixated on the

job. Trott & Windsor (1999) stress that transactional leadership is best suited for group settings

that are under crisis because it offers satisfaction through an urgent resolution. Medley &

Larochelle (1995) noted the results with transactional leadership are not very valuable over time

(as cited in Trott & Windsor, 1999). Although transactional leaders center on employee needs;

they do not offer opportunities for obtaining motivation, job contentment or allegiance (Sahin,

2004).


Generally the transactional leadership style is used mostly in organizations dominated by

command and control procedures (Bass, 1997). Silvestri (2007) reported that employees in a

transactional framework obtain their position within the structure through competition and

conformity. Furthermore, police leaders continue to work within the transactional style and

tend to be autocratic (Silvestri, 2007).

Transformational Leadership

According to Sullivan & Decker (1997), the transformational leader is not concerned

with the status quo, rather with “effecting revolutionary change in organizations and human

service” (as cited in Trott & Windsor, 1999). Bass (1996) defined transformational leadership as

the ability of a leader to motivate employees to surpass their own individual aspirations for the

greater good of the organization. Burns (1978) depicted the transformational leader as a

morally responsible manager who focuses on developing the moral maturity,

values, and standards of his or her subordinates and strengthening their

devotion to serve the well-being of others, their organization, and society

beyond self-interest (as cited in Olsen & Johnsen, 2006). Lowe, Kroeck, &

Sivasubramaniam (1996) described the transformational leader as being pioneering and less

likely to support the current situation, seeking opportunities in the face of risk, and attempting to

mold and create rather than react to environmental conditions (as cited in van Eeden, et al, 2008).

Van Eeden, et al (2008) added that a transformational leader is one who conveys a vision to

inspire others, sets long-term goals and emphasizes social and interpersonal skills. The

transforming leader looks for potential motives in employees, seeks to satisfy their needs and

engages the full person of the follower.


Jogulu & Wood (2007) insinuated transformational leadership involves

establishing oneself as a role model by gaining the trust and confidence of

employees and to develop their staff by sanctioning and guiding them to

excel beyond the organizational day-to-day obligations.

A transformational leader could be categorized as a visionary, a futurist or a mechanism for

change that assumes a proactive approach to management (Murphy, 2005).

Bolden et al (2003) posed change as the key focus for transformational leadership (as cited in

Taylor, 2009). Sofarelli & Brown (1998) suggested that a transformational leader must

possess high self-esteem, self-regard and self-awareness to effectively

transform organizations and employees (as cited in Murphy, 2005). Taylor

(2009) described the following fundamental features of transformational leadership: build a

shared vision, see the big picture and deal with convoluted issues, test thinking analytically,

encourage involvement and motivation, share information and enable trust through team

working, recognize contributions and celebrate accomplishments, create opportunities for

incessant learning and support people’s growth, including own; adaptable and able to deal with

unexpected issues, role model through behaviors and goal setting, and network effectively

(McNichol 2006, Shaw 2007).

Transformational leadership is based on four primary dynamics to influence the

behaviors and attitudes of others: idealized influence (“charisma”), inspirational motivation,

intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Ruggieri, 2009, McGuire & Kennerly,

2006).

Bass (1985) regarded the charismatic component as idealized influence. Idealized

influence implies the employees imitate their leader’s behavior and values and are committed to

and make sacrifices for the leader’s vision (as cited in van Eeden, et al, 2008).


In order for a leader to have idealized influence, an employee must be able to see that the leader

is unfailing in word or deed and they actually stand for something they aspire to do and inspire

their employees toward the same goal (Murphy & Drodge, 2004). Leaders with these attributes

are highly admired, respected, trusted, and have a high level of self-confidence, self-esteem, and

self- determination. They are usually regarded as role models and demonstrate high standards of

ethical and moral conduct (Chan & Chan, 2005).

Chan & Chan (2005) described inspirational motivation as the ability of leaders who can

stimulate and inspire employees and colleagues by building self-assurance, filling and arousing

enthusiasm and determination in the group. In general, this is the method of inspiring their vision

and encouraging employees to implement it for the future growth of the organization. This type

of leader provides symbols, metaphors, and simplified emotional appeals to increase awareness

and understanding of mutually desired goals (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Murphy & Drodge (2003)

pointed out that communicating the vision to everyone and reiterating it often was the key

ingredient of inspirational motivation.

Bass et al (1987) describes intellectual stimulation as encouraging employees to think of

creative ways to solve old problems, examining their own values and beliefs, and when suitable,

those of their leader (as cited in Deluga, 1990). As a result, the employees can extend

themselves with capabilities of discovering, examining, and resolving problems with a more

liberated thought in order to survive rapidly changing organizational environments (Deluga,

1990). Curtin (1995) confirmed this by suggesting that employees welcome new experiences as

long as they are not intimidated. Employees want to be included in the decision-making process

and know that their views are valued and desired.


Webb (2007) described individual consideration as the need employees have for personal

appreciation and the need to acknowledge the unique strengths and skills of each employee in an

organization. Chan & Chan (2005) agreed and believed if leaders acted as coaches or mentors,

and gave particular attention to individual employees’ needs for personal growth, advancement,

and achievement it would foster mutual trust and effect a positive impact on satisfaction with the

leaders, as well as overall productivity. Murphy & Drodge (2003) claimed a vital aspect of

individual consideration is assigning jobs to employees that offer opportunities to obtain

enthusiasm for what they are doing and providing the necessary tools to accomplish it.

The literature reviewed pointed out some benefits and drawbacks in using the

transformational leadership style. Taylor (2009) reasoned that transformational leaders place an

emphasis on team building, and empowering and developing potential in order to reach long-

term goals. Thyer (2003) reported a transformational leader creates a collaborative learning

environment, improves morale, embraces accountability and conflict resolution, proactive

towards change management, ignites communication and supports empowerment. These leaders

also facilitate employees toward motivation and being involved in the vision they produce.

Webb (2007) noted an advantage of transformational leadership is having highly motivated and

satisfied employees. Montana & Charnov (1993) stated these employees displayed a decrease in

occurrences of absenteeism and an escalation in production while on the job (as cited in Webb,

2007). In turn, Yukl (2003) claimed employees who distinguish their leader as caring for the

interests of each individual worker, are likely to exhibit increased allegiance, confidence, and to

have a stronger sense of emotional well-being.


When these issues are present, leaders tend to preserve a higher level of prominence in the

organization and the organization has a tendency for greater production (as cited in Webb, 2007).

Silvestri (2007) added that transformational leaders have a capability of infusing a higher degree

of passion into leadership by engaging employees and making them feel appreciated. Murphy

(2005) agreed and pointed out that transformational leaders could achieve this passion by

motivating and energizing employees to pursue goals, visions and the empowering culture. If

transformational leaders are passionate about appreciating their employees this will provide them

with opportunities to grow and develop (Silvestri, 2007). Sheldon & Parker (1997) believe, if a

leader effectively empowers employees, it develops an atmosphere of joint trust, increases job

contentment, and promotes dedication to the organizational goals which culminates in the

delivery of quality service (as cited in Murphy, 2005). Bass (1990) reported that

transformational leaders motivated employees to perform past their expectations (as cited in

Adebayo, 2004). Silvestri (2007) insisted that since the police organization culture is rank-

oriented it presents significant limitations for those employees wishing to implement alternative,

transformative ways of working that require more open and participatory forms of engagement

and interaction with colleagues. The ability of the police organization to integrate a

transformative style of working then becomes increasingly problematic. Transformative leaders

can be seen as being ineffectual and lenient. Another problem seen by many researchers is the

culture of police management demands speedy judgments and good decision makers; the

transformational approach takes too long and is therefore alleged to be unsuccessful (Silvestri).

Sofarelli & Brown (1998) refuted the advantages of the transformational leadership style because

it tends to interrupt a balanced and organized method of doing work (as cited in Murphy, 2005).


Wuestewald & Steinheider (2006) and Adebayo (2004) claimed the transformational

leader can institute a vision that will move the organization toward the future and an authentic

caring environment and procure employee support via idealized influence (charisma),

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. The use of

transformational leadership is gaining momentum because it is directly in contention with the

outdated autocratic unilateral style of leadership that has been forced on employees for many

years (Murphy, 2005). Bass (1990) argued that the doctrine of transformational leadership

related to all organizational levels (as cited in Kane & Tremble, 2000). Curtin (1995) stated the

transformational leader:

Does not simply strike a fair bargain with people; he/she adds something more by

calling them to a higher value, which in turn, increases their self-worth as they

learn to value their own contributions to the accomplishment of a mission.

Burns (1978) contended that transformational leaders could lead their employees to a higher

level of needs that was outlined in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. This was done by increasing

the employee’s level of knowledge in achieving valued conclusions, a vision and the plan to

accomplish these traits. It also involved employees exceeding their own concerns for the sake of

the team or organization and raising their awareness to enhance themselves and what they want

to achieve (as cited in Chan & Chan, 2005). This style of leadership can possibly turn

employees into leaders and leaders into change agents (Spinelli, 2006). Transformational

leadership qualities are learned from leaders accepting their own mistakes (Murphy). Silvestri

(2007) suggested that leaders using the transformational style of leadership not only affected

their employees, but it spilled over into the community as well.


This was accomplished by having motivated officers that related better to the community they

served. Murphy & Drodge (2003) sum transformational leadership as follows:

The key point here is that a police organisation’s explicit values must reflect the

core values of the broader society which the organisation serves, and that police

leaders must demonstrate the utmost respect for those values both personally and

professionally to be truly transformational.

III. Discussion of Changes to Police Leadership

Change can be complicated and taxing. Some changes can be projected, but some come

too quick to be prepared. Management styles and behaviors form a police organization’s culture.

Culture is seen to be important because it supports or hinders policies, provides value, influences

character, establishes consistency and direction, steers and forms conduct, and influences

organization success (Florida Department of Law Enforcement [FDLE], 2010). Thomas (2001)

wrote, “Our natural reaction to change, even in the best circumstances, is to resist. The

overwhelming majority of people naturally and fervently resist change either in their personal

lives or in the workplace. We like our ‘comfort zone’.”

There are a number of arguments for resisting change and implementing change. Adlam

& Villiers (2003); Franz and Jones (1987) believe that most research equates

police leadership with an archaic militaristic style. Franz and Jones (1987)

argue that the militaristic style hinders communication between leaders and

officers (as cited in Smith, 2009).


This causes problems with the problem-solving capabilities of police

organizations; how they confront a hastily shifting world; and how they

support the essential practice of modernization in a setting in which the

population and topography of everyday policing is changing rapidly (Smith,

2009). Hisrich & Peters (1992) asserted police leadership does not support

ingenuity, flexibility or autonomy due to leadership always enforcing the

philosophy of do what you are told, do not make mistakes, and do not take

risks (as cited in Smith). Canter (2000) coined the term ‘destructive

organizational psychology’ which means police organizations continue an

outdated system that primes certain officers within the organization to

become leaders instead of promoting those who have consistently

demonstrated the overall qualities of a progressive leader. Police leaders

select their future leaders early in their careers and usually do not accept the

ones that take time to develop over a longer period of time which promotes

the same antiquated police culture (as cited in Smith). Silvestri (2007)

emphasized the rank structure has evolved over many decades and has

acted as a right of passage for future leaders to carry on the antiquated

missions of the organization. Those officers obtaining rank view it as a

status symbol. McLaughlin & Murji (1985) contended that if the rank

structure was terminated, officers would believe it to be an unproductive

step and a loss of power (as cited in Silvestri, 2007). Presently, police

organizations are not prepared to embrace an innovative participatory style

of management because of its unwillingness to share information with

anyone and rank further complicates it (Silvestri). Wuestewald & Steinheider

(2006) pointed out that since police leadership is entwined in a traditional

hierarchical culture it discourages new styles of shared leadership because

these leaders either do not trust officers or have never been introduced to

adaptive leadership methods like, allowing interpersonal communication,

coaching, and


facilitation or inclusive decision-making. This results in no change to the

overall effectiveness of the organization and it remains status quo (as cited

in Smith).

Another aspect of fearing change is the perceived time it takes to make a

decision using one of the participatory leadership styles. Some leaders fear

it would be an ineffective method of making decisions and make one believe

they were an ineffective and indecisive leader (Silvestri). Davidhizar &

Cramer (2000) argued that police organizations do not want to change

because their culture and structure have been one in which the leaders are

male gendered. These leaders continued to be transactional, domineering,

aggressive and powerful (as cited in Thyer, 2003). Murray, Prunckun, & Ras

(2007) agreed and indicated that even with changes in masculinities and

femininities in police organizations; police leadership is still a “gendered

site”. There is some research that indicates that leaders are simply against

change. They lead under the assumptions that if things are working well,

why change it (FDLE, 2010).

In order for police leaders to establish themselves as being modern,

visionary and innovative, they must adapt to the changes that face them.

This is accomplished by empowering people within their organizations to

make decisions and stimulating collaboration (Wuestewald & Steinheider).

Adebayo (2004) wrote:

In order to react effectively to changes in society’s demographic composition,

education, and independent ideals, the leadership structure of the police must be

seen to be flexible enough to accommodate such changes and also ensure the

removal of unnecessary bureaucratic delays in the entire operation of the police.

The autocratic style of leadership that consisted mostly of less educated men in the past will not

suffice in this timeframe because the workforce has changed (Adebayo, 2004).


Smith (2009) declared that modern day leaders with advanced education have begun embracing

the change from the traditional promotional processes to elevating new leaders based upon their

education and roles. Education presents more opportunity for change within the police

organization by allowing these educated officers to broaden their knowledge, and question and

alter assessments in how services are provided.

Silvestri (2007) claimed that police leadership possibly changed because women challenged their

male counterparts for leadership roles; thusly changing the organizational culture (as cited in

Murray et al, 2007). Women have been incorporated in the police culture for over 30 years.

Eliminating some of these male gendered biases has resulted in a flatter structure and involved

an empowering and participative leadership. The changes in leadership styles have directly

benefited the pubic through community and problem-oriented policing. Women leaders are seen

to be more transformational, seeking to open up communication and the decision-making

process. As more and more women become leaders within the police organization it will shake

the foundation of the commanding and controlling style of leadership to one of transformation

(Silvestri).

Some research indicates that leaders must change because of generational issues. At the present,

there are four main generational groups that are active in the workplace: Veterans, Baby

Boomers, Generation X and Y. Most of the Veteran generation has either retired from leadership

roles or have come back from retirement in a civilian type position. Presently, the Baby

Boomers are the generation that is mainly in control. However, the Baby Boomers are beginning

to retire and this will force the other two generations into leadership roles and that will require an

organizational shift.


If the present economic trend continues all of these generations may continue to work together

for some time and they all need to know how to interact. In order to affect positive change, all of

these generations will have to respect and learn from each other. Leaders will need to emphasize

flexibility, training, and open communication between all generational groups throughout the

organization (FDLE, 2010).

Steinheider &Wuestewald (2008) proffered that change in police leadership and the

organizational structure was connected to the increased adoption of unions. In the past, leaders

did not consult union leaders in the decision-making process. Progressive leaders foster

improved work conditions, productivity, service delivery and increased organizational

commitment when including union leaders in the policy process.

Smith (2009) argued that change in police leadership was birthed when police leaders began the

use of teams to tackle problems and projects. The adoption of a team or participative concept

alludes to some of the characteristics that are consistent in the transformational style of

leadership. The remuneration of allowing officers to participate in the team concept while

working on projects and problems has made them more flexible and adaptable.

Thomas (2001) emphasized three mistakes to avoid if effective change is going to last. The first

mistake leaders make before implementing change is not including input from those the change

will affect. Leaders fail again by not spending enough time on stimulating and persuading

employees that change will be beneficial. Lastly, leaders have to model the way and promote the

change. If leaders avoid these mistakes it makes the change process less frustrating and stressful.


IV. Conclusion

Accountable and suitable leadership is essential to the success of any organization

(Spinelli, 2006). Murphy & Drodge (2003) claimed that a leader should be ethical, grounded in

the mission of the organization, and is emotionally engaged with employees. Ginger (2004)

pointed out six ‘Golden Rules’ for the modern police leader to follow:

Service to employees and the public, unselfishness, calculated awareness

(sensitivity to the wider social, cultural, political and business environments

within which the police service operates), support (subordinates and the pubic),

professional excellence and endurance with integrity.

Bass (1997) suggested that the old standards of job-centered or employee-centered leadership

and autocratic or democratic leadership and related exchange theories of leadership overlooked

the effects of the leader-employee relations of sharing a vision, representation and sacrifice.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs indicated a person needs to have their physiological needs, safety

needs, love and belonging, esteem needs, and self-actualization met. Herzberg’s Two-Factor

Theory claims in order for a person to feel successful they have to be motivated and this is

accomplished by achievement, recognition of this achievement, advancement, responsibility, and

the nature of the work itself. There are some factors that hinder being motivated and those are

rules and regulations, administration, supervision, working conditions, and interpersonal values

(FDLE, 2010). Webb (2007) emphasized that leaders who focused on stimulating employees

intellectually, offered rewards, had charisma and individual consideration were more apt to

increase motivation and success in their employees.


Transformational and transactional leadership can better allow employees to obtain their needs

as outlined by Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs and Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory.

Although there is a plethora of research on the topic of effective leadership styles there are some

researchers that claim a cross between transformational and transactional to be best for the

modern police leader. Jogulu & Wood (2007) insisted that using both of these styles of

leadership were essential in running a modern-day organization. McGuire & Kennerly (2006)

noted effective leaders should have a balance between transformational and transactional

leadership that matches that of its employees. Taylor (2009) claimed it was possible to use

transformational leadership within a transactional setting such as a police organization. Bass

(1997) noted that transformational leadership could be both autocratic and democratic or even

participative depending on the issues and authority. He suggested more authoritative

transformational leadership would be used during policy implementation rather than work place

decisions. Additionally, a review of literature suggests that transformational leadership is

complementary to and enhances transactional leadership (Spinelli). Bass (1988) reasoned a

transformational and transactional style of leadership is necessary for the continuation and

development of intricate organizations (as cited in Spinelli, 2006). Chan & Chan (2005) added

that the use of these two styles of leadership could affect employee outcomes positively, but not

in isolation of each other. Lipley (2004) pointed out that leaders using both of these styles of

leadership are likely to have employees that are more motivated and feel most supported.

Silvestri (2007) believed that the ability of the leader to encourage, transform, and improve

employees’ sense of belongingness is a fundamental element for the improvement of a police

leader.


She declared that a leader who masters the use of such styles will be a champion of change.

McGuire & Kennerly (2006) argued that for an organization to develop a more

transformational culture it would need to hire charismatic individuals that are less transactional

and who demonstrate a balance of ethics, morals and integrity.

It is widely understood that the face of police leadership is changing and in order to be and

effective leader one must embrace the changes that are before them. Jogulu & Wood (2007)

insisted that effective leadership not only institutes a clear vision for the direction of the

organization, but must empower employees to accept the challenges change will bring and

cooperate in accomplishing the mission. Cohen, & Eimicke (1995) agreed that effective

leadership shapes employees’ performance toward the mission of the organization (as cited in

Adebayo, 2004). Murphy (2004) contended that in order to be an effective leader one must

employ behaviors that make their employees feel respected and seek out advancement

opportunities for these employees. Fiedler (1967) suggested there is not just one ideal leadership

style to use for every issue, because they may have more knowledge and experience in one

situation, but may not be as adept in another (as cited in Murphy, 2005). An example of this is

when the leader knows when to direct and delegate and when to coach and mentor (Menzies,

2007). An effective leader must be open-minded and able to accept feedback and adjust their

style of leadership, if necessary, to accommodate the concerns brought forward.

In conclusion, change is necessary if a police organization wishes to keep up with the

times. The old styles of leadership must be broken and the organization should encourage and

train their leaders to be more transformational. Partnerships, power sharing, confidence and even

humbleness are supplanting the influence of rank (IACP, 1999).


This will cause the police organization to become flatter with less levels of management and

fewer clear differences between them (Wuestewald & Steinheider, 2006). Menzies (2007)

proffered that police leaders who become more collaborative and interdependent in their method

to solving conflicts and show concern for employees or build a collective vision will have a

major emotional impact on their employees. Taylor (2009) pointed out that leadership theories

enable a person to use the correct skills in any given situation through a process of

understanding, critical consideration and assessment. A panel of Chief’s of Police from several

agencies in Orange County, Florida, was asked what style of leadership was best used and the

overall consensus was a mixture because one should not rely on just one style because each

situation is different (FDLE, 2010).

Proposed Research Question

Based upon the review of the theories and empirical literature on leadership styles, the following

question is proposed:

To what extent would an exclusive transformational leadership style in police organizations

have on rank structure and promotions?


References

Autocrat. (2010). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved March 1, 2010, from


Adlam, R., & Villiers, P. (2003). Police leadership in the twenty first century:


Philosophy, doctrine and development. Hook, Hampshire: Waterside Press.

Adebayo, D. (2005). Perceived workplace fairness, transformational leadership and

motivation in the Nigeria police: implications for change. International Journal of Police

Science & Management, 7(2), 110-122. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from Academic

Search Premier database.

Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free

Press.

Bass, B. (1988). Charismatic leadership: The elusive factor in organizational

effectiveness. In Evolving perspectives on charismatic leadership, ed. Conger,

J., & Kanungo, N. and Associates, 40-77, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bass, B., Waldman, D., Avolio, B., & Bebb, M. (1987). Transformational leadership and

the falling dominoes effect. Group & Organization Studies, 12, 73-87.

Bass, B. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the

vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-36.

Bass, B. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational

leadership. Alexandria, VA: US Army Institute for Behavioral & Social Sciences.


Bass, B. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend

organizational and. American Psychologist, 52(2), 130. Retrieved March 13, 2010, from

Academic Search Premier database.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (1997). Full range of leadership development: Manual for the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Redwood City, CA: Mind Gardens.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A., & Dennison, P. (2003). A Review of Leadership

Theory And Competency Frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies, University of

Exeter. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from

http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/research/abtract.php?id=29.

Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

Canter, D. (2000). Destructive organizational psychology. In D. Canter, & L.J. Alison

(Eds.), Psychology and law: Bridging the gap (pp. 1-21). Dartmouth: Ashgate

Publishing.

Chan, A., & Chan, E. (2005). Impact of Perceived Leadership Styles on Work Outcomes:

Case of Building Professionals. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management,

131(4), 413-422. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2005)131:4(413).

Clark, D. (1997, May 11). Concepts of Leadership. Retrieved April 3, 2006 from

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html

Clark, D. (1997, May 11). Concepts of Leadership. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from

the World Wide Web: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadtem.html

Cohen, S., & Eimicke, W. (1995). The new effective public manager: Achieving success

in a changing environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Curtin, L. (1995, October). The "Gold Collar" Leader…?. Nursing Management, pp. 7-8.

Retrieved March 15, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Daft, R. (2005). The Leadership Experience. Toronto: Southwestern.

Davidhizar, R., & Cramer, C. (2000). Gender differences in leadership in the health

Professions. Health Care Manager, 18(3), 18-24.

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadtem.html

http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcon.html

http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/research/abtract.php?id=29

Deluga, R. (1990). The Effects of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez Faire

Leadership Characteristics on Subordinate Influencing Behavior. Basic & Applied Social

Psychology, 11(2), 191-203. Retrieved March 5, 2010, from Academic Search Premier

database.

Fiedler, F. (1967). A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill

Companies, Inc.

Franz, V., & Jones, D. (1987). Perceptions of organizational performance in suburban

Police departments: A critique of the military model. Journal of Police Science

And Administration, 15(3), 153-161.

Flynn, J. (2004). The merits of community policing in the twenty-first century: The view

From the street. In L Fridell (Ed), Community policing: The past, present, and future (pp.

141-149). Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Florida Department of Law Enforcement [FDLE], (2010). Florida Leadership Academy

Class 14, Managing change, 5,18 & 19.

Fyfe, J. J., Greene, J. R., Walsh, W. F., Wilson, O. W., & McLaren, R. C. (1997). Police

Administration, Fifth Edition. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.


Ginger, J. (2004). Police Leadership in the Twenty-First Century: Philosophy, Doctrine

and Developments (Book). International Journal of Police Science & Management, 6(2),

112-114. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Hartog, D., Van Muijen, J., & Koopman, P. (1997). Transactional versus transformational

leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational & Organizational

Psychology, 70(1), 19-34. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from Academic Search Premier

database.

Hesser, L. (1999, May). Police Leadership in the 21st Century Achieving & Sustaining

Executive Success. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from mhtml://E:\UCF\Police Leadership

in the 21st Century.mht

Hisrich, R., & Peters, M. (1992). Entrepreneurship: Starting, developing and managing

a new enterprise. Hollywood, IL: Irwin.

House, R. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science

Leadership Review. 16, 321-339.

International Association of Chief’s of Police (1999, May). Police Leadership in the 21st

Century Achieving & Sustaining Executive Success. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from

mhtml://E:\UCF\Police Leadership in the 21st Century.mht

Jogulu, U., & Wood, G. (2007). Power struggle [staff empowerment]. Engineering

Management, 17(3), 36-37. doi:10.1049/em:20070306.

Kane, T., & Tremble, T. (2000). Transformational Leadership Effects at Different Levels of the

Army. Military Psychology, 12(2), 137-160. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from Academic Search

Premier database.


Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). California:

Jossey-Bass.

Lipley, N. (2004). Mix of leadership styles is best. Nursing Management - UK, 10(9), 4.

Retrieved March 27, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Lussier, R., & Achua, C. (2004). Leadership Theory, Application, Skill Development.

Minnesota: Southwestern.

McGuire, E., & Kennerly, S. (2006). Nurse Managers as Transformational and

Transactional Leaders. Nursing Economic$, 24(4), 179-185. Retrieved March 7, 2010,

from Academic Search Premier database.

McLaughlin, E., & Murji, K. (1995). “The end of public policing? Police reform and the

‘new managerialism’”, in: Noaks, L., Levi, M., & Maguire, M. (eds),

Contemporary Issues in Criminology. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Marquis, B. & Huston, C. (2000). Leadership Roles and Management Functions in

Nursing (3rded.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.

McNichol, E. (2007). Understanding yourself as a leader in: McNichol E, Hamer, S.

(Eds), Leadership and Management: A 3-Dimensional Approach. Cheltenbam:

Nelson Thornes.

Mechanic, D. (1962). Sources of power in lower participants n complex organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 7, 349-364.

Medley, F. & Larochelle, D. (1995). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction.

Nursing Management, 26(9), 64JJ-LL.


Menzies, C. (2007). What do we know about leadership and policing? Retrieved March

o 27, 2010 from http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Menzies.pps o

Montana, P., & Charnov, B. (1993). Management. Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.

Murphy, L. (2005). Transformational leadership: a cascading chain reaction. Journal of

Nursing Management, 13(2), 128-136. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00458.x.

Murphy, S. (2008). The role of emotions and transformational leadership on police

culture: an autoethnographic account. International Journal of Police Science &

Management, 10(2), 165-178. doi:10.1350/ijps.2008.10.2.72.

Murphy, S., & Drodge, E. (2004). The four I's of police leadership: A case study

heuristic. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 6(1), 1-15. Retrieved

March 16, 2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Murray, T., Prunckun, H., & Ras, J. (2007). Reviews. Police Practice & Research, 8(5),

487-493. doi:10.1080/15614260701764363.

Olsen, O., Eid, J., & Johnsen, B. (2006). Moral Behavior and Transformational

Leadership in Norwegian Naval Cadets. Military Psychology, 1837-56.

doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1803s_4.

Ospina, S. & Yaroni, A. (2003). Understanding cooperation behavior in labor

Management cooperation: A theory-building exercise. Public Administration Review,

63(4), 455-471.

Pettigrew, A. (1972). Information control as power resource. Sociology, 6, 187-204.


Professional Organizations: Leadership. List and explain the styles of leadership used by

effective leaders. D.O. CAPS. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from

http://www.temple.edu/cte/research/DOCAPS/DOCAPS_09.pdf.

Ruggieri, S. (2009). Leadership in Virtual Teams: A Comparison of

Transformational and Transactional Leaders. Social Behavior & Personality: An

http://www.temple.edu/cte/research/DOCAPS/DOCAPS_09.pdf

International Journal, 37(8), 1017-1021. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from Academic


Sahin, S. (2004). The Relationship between Transformational and Transactional

Leadership Styles of School Principals and School Culture (The case of Izmir, Turkey).

Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 4(2), 387-395. Retrieved January 25, 2010,

from Academic Search Premier database.

Shaw, S. (2007). Nursing Leadership. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Sheldon, L., & Parker, P. (1997). The power to lead. Nursing Management, 4 (1), 8-9.

Silvestri, M. (2007). “Doing” Police Leadership: Enter the “New Smart Macho”. Policing

& Society, 17(1), 38-58. doi:10.1080/10439460601124130.

Skogan, W. (2004). Community policing: Common impediments to success. In L.

Fridell (Ed.), Community policing: The past, present, and future (pp.159-167).

Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Skogan, W. (2006, October 12-13). Why reforms fail. Paper for the University of

Berkeley/Australian National University Conference on Police Reform from the Bottom-

Up, Berkeley, CA.


Skogan, W. & Hartnett, S. (1997). Community policing, Chicago style. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Smith, R. (2008). Entrepreneurship, police leadership, and the investigation of crime in

changing times. Journal of Investigative Psychology & Offender Profiling, 5(3), 209-225.

doi:10.1002/jip.86.

Sofarelli, D. & Brown, D. (1998). The need for nursing leadership in uncertain times.

Journal of Nursing Management, 6, 201-207.

Spinelli, R. (2006). The Applicability of Bass's Model of Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership in the Hospital Administrative Environment.

Hospital Topics, 84(2), 11-18. Retrieved January 22, 2010, from Academic Search

Premier database.

Steers, R., Porter, L., & Bigley, G. (1996). Motivation and leadership at work. New

York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Steinheider, B., & Wuestewald, T. (2008). From the bottom-up: sharing leadership in a

police agency. Police Practice & Research, 9(2), 145-163.

doi:10.1080/15614260802081303.

Strecher, V. “Current Perspectives on Policing,” pp. 324-355 in Larry T. Hoover (ed.),

Police Management: Issues and Perspectives (Washington, D.C.: Police Executive

Research Forum, 1992).

Sullivan, E. & Decker, P. (1997). Effective leadership and management in nursing

(4th ed). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.


Taylor, R. (2009). Leadership theories and the development of nurses in primary health

care. Primary Health Care, 19(9), 40-46. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from Academic


Thomas, G. (2001). Being an effective agent of change. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from

weLead, http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/sepoct01/change102001.html.

http://www.leadingtoday.org/Onmag/sepoct01/change102001.html

Thyer, G. (2003). Dare to be different: transformational leadership may hold the key to

reducing the nursing shortage. Journal of Nursing Management, 11(2), 73-79.

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2834.2002.00370.x.

Trott, M., & Windsor, K. (1999). Leadership Effectiveness: How Do You Measure Up?

Nursing Economic$, 17(3), 127-130. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from Academic Search

Premier database.

University of Central Florida, (n.d.). Advantages and Disadvantages of the Leadership

Styles. Retrieved January 25, 2010, from mhtml:file://E:\UCF\Advantages and

Disadvantages of the Leadership Styles.mht.

van Eeden, R., Cilliers, F., & van Deventer, V. (2008). Leadership styles and associated

personality traits: Support for the conceptualisation of transactional and transformational

leadership. South African Journal of Psychology, 38(2), 253-267. Retrieved March 7,

2010, from Academic Search Premier database.

Webb, K. (2007). Motivating Peak Performance: Leadership Behaviors That Stimulate

Employee Motivation and Performance. Christian Higher Education, 6(1), 53-71.

doi:10.1080/15363750600932890.


Wolf, G., Boland, S. & Aukerman, M. (1994b). A transformational model for the practice

of professional nursing: part 2, implementation of the model. JONA 24(5), 38-46.

Wright, P. (1996). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler

Publishers, Inc.

Wuestewald, T. & Steinheider, B. (2006, April). The Changing Face of Police

leadership. The Police Chief, 73(4), 26-33. Retrieved February 19, 2010, from Criminal

Justice Periodicals. (Document ID: 1191292731).

Yukl, G. (2003). Leadership in organizations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/documents/mgmt_standards.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadership

http://www.leadership-central.com/behavioral-theories.html#axzz1rYqjPBce

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=behavioral%20theories%20of%20leadership&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leadership-central.com%2Fbehavioral-theories.html&ei=Ag2DT868NYPYrQetlLD0BQ&usg=AFQjCNH5ssEp36CtKmLcW4SLR1IEQA2IOQ

Contingent Leadership

www.practical-management.com

Leadership Basics - Meaning, Characteristics, Theories, Qualities and Useful Articles

http://managementstudyguide.com/leadership_basics.htm

http://www.practical-management.com/Leadership-Development/Contingent-Leadership.html




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_leadership

managementstudyguide.com

1.

9:29 AMhttp://www.leadership-central.com/behavioral-theories.html#axzz1rYqjPBcewww.leadership-central.com

2.

(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autocrat).

http://managementstudyguide.com/trait-theory-of-leadership.htm

Read more: http://www.leadership-central.com/behavioral-theories.html#ixzz1rYquAi6p



http://www.leadership-central.com/behavioral-theories.html#ixzz1rYquAi6p

http://managementstudyguide.com/trait-theory-of-leadership.htm



52275457 Leadership Theories and Practice

Documents

Transcript of 52275457 Leadership Theories and Practice