3 Vision Visioning is relatively easy. Casting a shared and clea.docx

3 Vision V
isioning is relatively easy. Casting a shared and clear vision,
then holding one another accountable for its pursuit is what’s
tough.
A vision is an expression of what a person or an organization
cares about.
The insight to see new paths, the courage to try them, and
judgment to measure results—these are the qualities of a leader.
—MARY PARKER FOLLETT
WHY POLICE MANAGERS GET INTO TROUBLE!
The future isn’t what it used to be. —Yogi Berra Obviously
police managers can get into trouble for a lot of reasons. The
seven reasons I most often see follow. First, they choose to
forfeit their integrity for the slick, fast, questionable shortcuts
to success. Second, their vision isn’t shared by others. Third,
the vision lacks clarity. Four, the vision may be great, but it is
sorely void of a strategy for making it happen. Five, worse yet,
it may contain a viable strategy, but there’s no built-in
accountability. Six, some managers fail to recognize and deal
with the existing culture.
We’ll tackle these issues in the following four sections:
• Vision
• Strategy
• Culture
• Prospection
VISION
If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost;
that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under
them. —Henry David Thoreau
A vision is stable; it doesn’t change often or much. After all,
what we truly value does not flip-flop daily. Values are
enduring and therefore visions are, too. A vision is a compass
for maintaining a steady point toward a destination that we

really care about. Strategy serves as a rudder for altering
direction, speed, and tactics to successfully navigate the
incoming tempest to change. Visions are constant while
strategies vary.
The twentieth century began by changing the old constancies,
while the twenty-first century began with change as the only
constant.
The remainder of this section covers (1) the ingredients or
“recipe” for a vision, (2) building a shared vision or not, and (3)
accountability. (The foundational need for a clear vision is a
part of strategy.)
Recipe
Here are the key characteristics of vision:
Purpose/Mission. Whether you call it a mission or a purpose, a
vision statement must articulate the fundamental reason for the
organization’s existence. It explains exactly why you exist and
why you’re important.
Future. It paints an inspiring future that is not out of sight, but
slightly out of reach. It is not an idle dream, but rather a
compelling picture of the way it ought to look.
Values. A vision statement is loaded with values. It tells the
reader precisely what the organization stands for and is
prepared to be measured on.
Principled Decision Making. A shared vision should be judged
on its ability to encourage principled decisions. Here’s the
question: “Does my vision statement help me to know the wrong
path while pointing to the right one?” When you study your
shared vision, are you comfortable that it propels you toward
moral high ground?
Change Agent. A shared vision of a desirable future will
automatically nudge the department for measurable progress. If
a vision does not encourage constant change and new strategies,
then it’s not a vision.
Conflict Resolution. All police departments struggle over
issues. It’s natural that the staff will differ on the best means to
resolve a problem. When this occurs, cast your attention on the

shared vision, allowing it to assist in problem resolution.
Excellence. Finally, any shared vision should foster a standard
of excellence—an excellence by which you, other members of
your agency, and your community can measure how good you
actually are. The above seven metrics are to be applied when
constructing or evaluating an existing shared vision. No
measurable metrics = no viable vision.
Approaches
There are two ways for building a vision statement—from the
top down (command and control) or from the bottom up
(empowered staff). The first approach produces a vision
statement, while the latter creates one that is shared, endorsed
by members of the agency.
APPROACH A: TOP DOWN
The “A” in this approach signifies above or boss down. For the
past three decades many police management teams have created
vision statements and worked hard on communicating them to
their employees. They believe that vision comes best from the
wisdom and expertise at the top of the agency. Consider the
following scenario: A meeting is convened so the top managers
can develop a vision statement and plan for its distribution. The
intent is sincere and the content is always appealing. Each
police management team affirms its uniqueness by declaring
that it:
• Is committed to being a professional department.
• Believes in its people.
• Stands firm for quality.
• Cares for customers.
• Affirms honesty and integrity.
• Supports teams.
• Is innovative.
But there’s a built-in problem—ownership and implementation!
Buy-in resides with those who create a vision and with them
alone. A vision statement created by the chief for a police
agency to endorse is not owned by the employees. An even more
fundamental defect is that, in most cases, the vision statement is

created by management for the rest of the organization to
implement. Creating a vision statement without shared
ownership is fruitless. If you want to see ownership, then all
employees need to struggle with articulating their own vision of
who they are, where they want to go, and what they truly
believe in. And then it’s your turn to craft their insights into a
vision
. Point—If a police employee does not feel ownership in a
vision, why would he or she feel obligated to make it happen?
End point.
APPROACH B: BOTTOM UP
The bottom-up method for achieving a vision statement escapes
the two dangerous pitfalls of the top-down—ownership and
implementation. The operational word here is “shared.” Yes,
Approach A will give the department a vision statement but, it
is Approach B that gives it a vision with consequences.
Sculpting shared vision requires time, energy, and inspiration.
But it’s well worth it! Why? Because everyone acquires
ownership in the final product. If you sense an ownership in
something worthwhile, you’re certainly going to support it.
If a leader sincerely wants a vision to be shared by the
department, then the following has to happen:
• Listen carefully to all input.
• Link it to the fundamental purpose of police work.
• Make certain all employees are equally mandated to
participate (empowerment).
• Retain an open mind and reserve judgment until all views have
been surfaced. • Encourage differing, even conflicting,
viewpoints.
• Accept the responsibility for the ultimate departmental vision.
Examples
Let’s take a look at three vision statements. If you are tempted
to take a shortcut by simply adopting all or a potion of them—
don’t do it! A cookie-cutter vision statement is devoid of flavor,
calories, and energy. We’ll flex the learning here by casting the
three examples into a structured exercise.

STRUCTURED EXERCISE 3–1
Examine the three vision statements that follow. First, highlight
all of the values you can spot in each one. Second, look for any
goals and record them. Third, write a single sentence that
summarizes the expressed purpose of the agency. Compare your
findings with others. Are there similarities? Are there any
unique concepts or values? What else did you deduce from your
research? Finally, either alone or as a member of a group,
develop a vision statement for your work unit.
Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department
Our Mission
The quality of neighborhood life, its safety and welfare, comes
from the commitment of each of its citizens. The Los Angeles
County Sheriff’s Department takes pride in its role as a citizen
of the community; partners with its members in the delivery of
quality law enforcement services. We dedicate our full-time
efforts to the duties incumbent upon every community member.
As we act, we are universal citizens deriving our authority from
those we serve. We accept our law enforcement mission to serve
our communities with the enduring belief that in so doing, we
serve ourselves. As professionals, we view our responsibilities
as a covenant of public trust, ever mindful that we must keep
our promises. As we succeed, our effectiveness will be
measured by the absence of crime and fear in our neighborhoods
and by the level of community respect for our efforts. In
accomplishing this all-important mission, we are guided by the
following principles:
To recognize that the primary purpose of our organization is not
only the skillful enforcement of the law, but the delivery of
humanitarian services which promote community peace.
To understand that we must maintain a level of professional
competence that ensures our safety and that of the public
without compromising the constitutional guarantees of any
person.
To base our decisions and actions on ethical as well as practical
perspectives and to accept responsibility for the consequences.

To foster a collaborative relationship with the public in
determining the best course in achieving community order.
To strive for innovation, yet remain prudent in sustaining our
fiscal health through wise use of resources.
To never tire of our duty, never shrink from the difficult tasks,
and never lose sight of our own humanity.
Our Core Values We shall be service-oriented and perform our
duties with the highest possible degree of personal and
professional integrity.
Service-oriented policing means
• Protecting life and property.
• Preventing crime.
• Apprehending criminals.
• Always acting lawfully.
• Being fair and impartial and treating people with dignity.
• Assisting the community and its citizens in solving problems
and maintaining the peace.
We shall treat every member of the Department, both sworn
and civilian, as we would expect to be treated if the positions
were reversed. We shall not knowingly break the law to enforce
the law. We shall be fully accountable for our own actions or
failures and, when appropriate, for the actions or failures of our
subordinates. In considering the use of deadly force, we shall be
guided by reverence for human life. Individuals promoted or
selected for special assignments shall have a history of
practicing these values.
New York City Police Department Mission
The MISSION of the New York City Police Department is to
enhance the quality of life in our City by working in partnership
with the community and in accordance with constitutional rights
to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide
for a safe environment. Values In partnership with the
community, we pledge to:
• Protect the lives and property of our fellow citizens and
impartially enforce the law.
• Fight crime both by preventing it and by aggressively

pursuing violators of the law.
• Maintain a higher standard of integrity than is generally
expected of others because so much is expected of us.
• Value human life, respect the dignity of each individual, and
render our services with courtesy and civility.
Plano, Texas, Police Department
Our Mission The Plano Police Department is a value-driven
organization that serves the community by:
• Protecting life and property
. • Preventing crime.
• Enforcing the laws.
• Maintaining order for all citizens.
As the Police Department serves our community, we emphasize:
• Voluntary compliance
• Education of citizens
• Partnership with community
• Visual presence in the community
• Detection and apprehension of offenders Our Values We
achieve that mission by:
• Integrity
• Fairness and equity
• Personal responsibility
• Customer orientation
• Teamwork
• Planning and problem solving
Accountability
Quite simply, accountability means that a police employee or
group of employees is responsible for an outcome—good or bad.
In the top-notch police department I worked for, members own
their actions and results. Regretfully, too many employees feel
accountability is something thrust upon them when things go
haywire. In other words, “Don’t worry, we’ll let you know if
you mess up, otherwise assume you are doing O.K.” In poorly
performing police agencies, I see accountability imposed upon
employees who have little or no control over the situation.

Excellent police departments see accountability as a plus. They
personally embrace equal accountability for their successes and
mistakes, because they have a voice in the agency’s vision, and
are empowered to anticipate and correct problems. The
operative condition here is empowerment. Being empowered is
the critical difference between imposed and volunteered
accountability.
Giving police employees the chance to participate in the
development of work process and measurements eliminates
worries about unfairness and mistreatment, and encourages
employees to take pride in their work. Empowered workers are
accountable workers! Here are four very practical ways to
increase accountability. First, include the vision as a
centerpiece in all pre-entry and in-training programs.
Replication works. Discussing current events (e.g., arrests,
awards, changes) as examples of the vision in operation is
helpful. If you want your vision statement to be a daily reality,
then as a leader you simply have to reinforce it. Again—
repetition works. Second, the vision statement should be made a
core portion of all career assignments and promotional tests. If I
were on your promotional oral board, my first question to you
would be, “What values comprise your vision or mission
statement?” My second, “What have you done in the past few
days to exemplify your vision statement?” Third, the leader
should conduct an annual survey of community opinions about
the values professed in the vision/mission statement. The survey
should also include questions on work performance, and I’ll
cover this in the final chapter. One question might be, “Your
department has made a commitment to making you feel more
secure. How secure do you feel right now in your home? Do you
have any ideas on how we can make you feel more secure?”
Finally, integrate your vision statement into your employee
performance appraisal system. Why? Because …
I am sure there are other creative ways to make a shared vision
operative in your agency. Round up some of your co-workers

and brainstorm ideas on how your department’s vision can be
manifested into the living fabric of your organizational culture.
Keep in mind that when it comes to a department’s vision, it is
never a question of what others will do, but of what you will do.
What gets measured gets done.
It makes sense. If, for example, “service” is one of the values
expressed in your vision statement, then it is reasonable and
relevant that a police employee’s attitude and behavior be
assessed on this value. Let’s face it; it doesn’t make sense to
salute and cheer a vision while there’s no bottom line payoff for
making it happen.
STRATEGY
We must become the change we want to see. —Gandhi
How well a police agency negotiates the hurdles of change is
the key to its survival and success. Some change is external
(e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act, homeland security,
shifting demographics) and some is internal (e.g., budgetary
constraints, diverse management styles, continuous labor
relations). Regardless of its source, any change should pose two
questions:
• Does it challenge our vision?
• How does it affect our values?
Incessant and avalanching changes can modify a goal, which
means re-examining and perhaps recasting it. In other cases, the
changes may alter how the goal will be implemented. In both
situations the police leader must think strategically … long
term!
Strategic thinking is the basis for developing strategic plans
and operational plans. It is a leadership quality for making
better choices about how to implement departmental goals in the
face of chronic and random changes.
When it comes to the subject of strategy (long term), it is
typically attached to the word “planning” or strategic planning.
It has been my experience, as well as that of the police leaders
who use it, that …
Thinking strategically is a lot more difficult than planning for

it.
I’m not implying that strategic planning is quick and humdrum.
It requires work. But the truly tough brain work resides in
“thinking” as compared to planning strategy. When thinking
strategically you automatically wrestle with change, and this
invariably …
• Uncovers the causes versus the symptoms of problems
. • Dislodges conventional thinking.
• Depends more on intuition than on intellect.
• Seeks to anticipate.
• Points out more than one approach for accomplishing a goal.
To sharpen your strategic thinking, take the following four
steps.
Step 1: Good Strategy/Bad Strategy A good strategy has an
essential logical structure that consists of three elements:
• A diagnosis
• A guiding policy
• Coherent action
The guiding policy specifies the approach to dealing with the
obstacles called out in the diagnosis. It is like a signpost
marking the direction forward, but not defining the details of
the trip. Coherent actions are feasible coordinated policies,
resource commitments, and actions designed to carry out the
guiding policy. A good strategy honestly acknowledges the
challenges being faced.
Unfortunately, good strategy is the exception, not the rule.
Many police managers say that they have a strategy, but they do
not. They embrace broad goals, ambitions, visions, and values,
and skip over pesky details such as problems—this is bad
strategy, and while commendable and useful elsewhere, leaders
must not confuse them with strategy. In short, a strategy is a
coherent set of analyses, policies, arguments, and actions that
target a high-stakes challenge.
Here’s how to spot bad strategy. Look for:
1. A scrambled, extensive list of things to do. Often the label
“long term” is added so that nothing is urgent.

2. “Blue-sky” objectives that offer no clue on the link between
the challenge and the action. “To improve team communication”
is a frequent blue-sky objective.
3. An active avoidance of tough, painful choices among
competing values.
4. Template-style leadership, which is filling in the blanks with
lofty vision, mission, values, and strategies. Leadership and
strategy may be joined in the same person, but they are not the
same thing.
5. Lots of positivity will overcome any adversity and/or
uncertainty; for example, “Shoot for the moon and if you miss
it, you’ll be among the stars.” The doctrine that one can impose
one’s vision and desires on the world by the force of thought
alone has a powerful appeal to many people. Its acceptance
displaces critical thinking and good strategy.
Step 2: Recognizing Creative Constraints
The majority of us daily cope with mental blinders that
constrain our creativity. There are five in particular that limit
our imagination. They are as follows:
1. Resistance to and avoidance of change. Many of us cling to
conventional wisdom for safety, blocking new insights.
2. Dependence on rules and conformance. Some of us
emphasize conformance over performance by enforcing strict
adherence to rules, procedures, and structures.
3. Fear and self-doubt. Some police leaders become
immobilized by insecurity, lack of confidence, and fear of
criticism.
4. Fixation on logic and hard data. Many leaders have more of a
commitment to mechanics than to results. Some expect
problems and solutions to fit snugly into neat compartments.
5. Black-and-white viewpoints. The maturity that comes with
experience tends to change previously black-and-white
judgments to varying shades of gray. Regrettably, some police
managers hold to an either/or approach, which seriously reduces
their options to a couple of defaults.
Step 3: Tuning In

Most of us seldom tap the full reserve of our knowledge and
experience. When we encounter issues, we get anxious. In our
anxiety, we forget to trust our intuitive resources. Insight, like
great poetry, music, or art, arises from the quiet depths of the
unconscious from a source that lies beneath words, deeds,
thoughts, and figures.
Step 4: Goal Setting—Clarity
Setting goals and the change process are close pals. You fuss
with one and automatically engage the other.
Goal: (n) a desired state of affairs that one attempts to achieve;
deciding on a destination and then proceeding in that direction.
By definition then, a goal requires two efforts: seeing the
change you want and then making it happen. Dreaming alone is
just that—dreaming—no change. Action alone is purposeless—
haphazard change or maybe none at all. Yes, grammatically a
goal is a noun. But in reality a goal is a verb, because it
demands action, and action produces change. Let’s explore three
fundamental characteristics that all police leaders must consider
when setting goals: (1) stated versus real, (2) one versus many,
and (3) vague versus clear.
STATED, OR REAL, OR BOTH?
A stated goal and a real goal may or may not be identical. For
example, a police agency proclaims a goal of “Equal police
service for all our community.” But in reality the deployment of
resources is based in favor of the business community. Another
example: an agency doesn’t state anything about gang
enforcement, but has actually set a latent goal fervently
combating gang activity. One more example: a department
professes a goal of reducing Part I crimes by five percent and in
reality means it. It is confusing when organizations state goals
that are not real or have real goals that are not pursued.
ONE OR MORE?
I have never met a person who has only one purpose in life. I
am also unaware of any organization that has exclusively one
goal. Imagine a police agency stating, “Our only purpose is to
hook and book.” Clearly all police organizations contain

multiple goals. Typically a few dominate and influence others,
which creates a “hierarchy” of goals or a system of priorities.
Having interoperable priorities increases clarity, and that’s
next.
VAGUE OR CLEAR?
For several centuries there was a furious debate over goals
being vague (flexible) or clear (precise). The latter won. Why?
In his brilliantly insightful book, The One Thing You Need to
Know (ISBN 0-7432-6265-8), Marcus Buckingham presented
solid scientific evidence that humankind has five major fears
that produce five critical needs. Pause here and look below.
Which in your opinion is foremost?
Fears → Needs
Death → Security
Outsider → Community
Future → Clarity
Chaos → Authority
Insignificance → Respect
It may come as a surprise, but the answer is clarity. After your
integrity, if you do nothing else as a leader, be clear. Clarity
reduces our anxiety about our incoming future. An effective
leader doesn’t have to be passionate, charming, brilliant, or
highly verbal, but you must be clear. Our need for clarity, when
met, is the most likely to engender within us confidence,
persistence, resilience, creativity, and followership.
The great clarifiers are leaders who make us certain about: (1)
who we really serve, (2) what our core strengths are, (3) what in
reality is being measured (the score card); and (4) setting an
example for us to follow.
You can administer the following “clarifier-awareness scale”
two ways. First, according to your self-analysis of your style of
leading. Second, merely switch the words in your mind to that
of your boss. (It’s best applied in both ways.)
The “4” Points of Clarity
Are you (your boss) clarifying for your team (use a number 1–7;

7 is high).
1. Who do you serve? (Who do you really serve?) ___________
2. What is your core strength? (Traffic, gangs, drugs, terrorism,
safety, or …). Do you tell your staff clearly where your core
strength lies, and thus centered, they will do everything in their
power to make it happen? What is your number? ___________
3. What is your core score? Do you sort through all the metrics
and pick one (e.g., reduction of Part I crimes) that they have the
strengths to impact—and daily broadcast it? What is your
number? ___________
4. What actions are you taking? For one, I will be guided by
the clarity of what you do. I need to see examples. I need to see
you walk your talk. Do you clearly set the example? Your
number? ___________
To sum up—if you are really intent on leading others, you have
to:
• Show them clearly who they serve.
• Show them their core strengths
. • Show them the score card
. • Show them what actions must be taken.
They will reward you by following your leadership toward a
better future for you, for them, for your department, and for
your community.
Here is a simple but powerful exercise to help you understand
the significance of goal setting.
• Imagine learning that you have to retire in one year. List
three things you’d like to accomplish during this last year.
• Assume 11 months have passed and you have one month left.
Again, list three things you would like to do. • Make a new list
assuming you have one week left and another assuming you
have only 48 hours left.
• Examine what you’ve written. If your list includes activities
you’re not currently pursuing, what’s stopping you from
pursuing them now? Get on track!

Goal setting sets the stage for the development of more precise
operational objectives. This subject and “MBO” (managing by
objectives) await you in upcoming chapters. Note: This exercise
can be easily modified to focus on your personal life. Merely
assume that you have one year to live. List three things you’d
want to do within the year and so on to 48 hours.)
CULTURE
Organizational culture will eat strategy for breakfast every day.
—Charles “Red” Scott
You can create a clear vision of where you want to go along
with a superb strategy for getting there, but if your
department’s culture says “no way,” then it just won’t happen.
As “Red” exclaimed, if your agency’s work culture is not in
alignment with your hopes and plans, then it’ll easily eat them
alive.
While tough to change, an organizational culture certainly can
be changed; it is not wired into our human DNA. Culture is
nested in our values, not our genes, and as those values and
police leaders change and adapt, so too can culture. In other
words, your strategy can escape cultural dictates, but only
through careful planning and action.
Fortunately there is a process that can help police leaders avoid
the devastating experience of seeing their vision and strategy
being gobbled up by entrenched no-change hard-liners. In a
word—it’s empowerment. The full benefits and dynamics of this
vital process await us in another chapter. (A while back you
were exposed to it when you read about the bottom-up approach
for conceiving a department’s vision of a preferred future.)
Empowerment means letting employees use their signature
strengths.
PROSPECTION
Prospection (pro-spek-shen). The act of looking forward in time
or considering the future.
In his informative must-read book Stumbling on Happiness
(ISBN 1-4000-7742-7), Daniel Gilbert informs us how and why
we are different from all other animal life. We can and

frequently (typically two hours per day) think about the future.
With our knowledge, needs, hopes, feelings, and memory, we
imagine what is around the corner for us. But Gilbert warns us
that while our imagination is a powerful tool that allows us to
conjure up images from inner space, it has two shortcomings.
Imagination (that faculty that helps us to view the future) first
has to cope with misremembering the past, and second, with
mispreviewing the present, which causes you and me to
misimagine the future.
Congenital naysayers are among the greatest stumbling blocks
to imaging the future. They want the facts, just the facts. Steven
Samples, The Contrarian’s Guide to Leadership (ISBN 0-7879-
5587-6), writes that our imagination might be every bit as
important as vision! What’s neat about your imagination is you
do not have to exclusively rely on your own. As a police leader,
you best tap into the ideas of the creative geniuses who work
for you. After all, they’re being paid to think, so help them earn
their salary! Samples warns that if you’re incapable of imaging
the future or incapable of engaging the fresh ideas of your staff,
your followers are better off without you.
Many police managers are enamored by hard numbers, focus on
concrete reality, and accept nothing else. Imagination is for
them the soft stuff, guess-work, and lacks substance. Of course
proven facts are …
CHAPTER 7 Leadership
VIGNETTE
One of the major difficulties facing criminal justice
organizations is the dearth of quality leaders found among the
rank and file. Current research has underscored the importance
of leadership to criminal justice agencies, yet when we
investigate the number and quality of leadership-development
programs in criminal justice organizations, we find very few
agencies actually investing in leadership development.
The costs of leadership programs are miniscule by comparison
to other entities and programs on which we spend monies in our

efforts as criminal justice administrators. Take, for example, the
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program.
Communities and police departments spend millions of dollars
on this initiative to reduce drug use among youth, yet the
evidence is clear that the program has no appreciable impact on
drug usage among young people. What does the efficacy of a
drug program for young people have to do with leadership
development in criminal justice organizations? A lot. When you
fail to invest in good leadership education programs (not
training programs), you get the quality of leader who will make
decisions that do not reflect the best possible practices;
communities will ultimately suffer and waste an enormous
number of resources.
Similarly, as an investment strategy, endorsing leadership
development is critical to maintaining quality personnel up and
down the hierarchies of criminal justice organizations. Research
has shown that many of our executive leaders within criminal
justice organizations do not last long. Their tenure, in many
cases, is limited. Police chiefs, especially police chiefs in large
urban communities, do not have long tenure. There are many
reasons for this outcome. One primary reason is that police
executives do not know how to lead their agencies; they confuse
leadership with management, the former being more visionary
and the latter more bureaucratic. The lack of leadership
development has consequences for all criminal justice
organizations.
The contemporary criminal justice administrator is expected to
be an effective leader, an expectation that fits with the general
demand for competent leaders in all organizations, both public
and private. Although a great deal of prescriptive material tells
the criminal justice administrator how to lead an organization
effectively, there is little empirical evidence on what effective
leadership actually involves. In this chapter, we review the
relevant aspects of these models and apply our understanding of
the leadership process to the requirements of the criminal
justice system.

Our review, however, will not be prescriptive. Instead, we will
offer an analytical framework rooted in empirical research and
theoretical models of leadership. In this way, we hope not only
to provide an increased understanding of how the process of
leadership works in criminal justice organizations but also to
suggest what our expectations of criminal justice leaders should
and should not be.
To accomplish these objectives, we explore several areas. First,
we define leadership and argue that, because criminal justice
administration is fundamentally politically driven, it is useful to
understand leadership within the political arena. Second, the
chapter reviews the major theories of leadership that have been
developed in research on organizational behavior. Our
discussion in this section integrates what we know about
leadership research done in other organizations and applies
these findings to the criminal justice system. Our review in this
section includes an analysis of behavioral and contingency
theories of leadership and more twenty-first-century ideas on
leadership—theories that hold promise for explaining the
leadership process in criminal justice organizations.
Finally, the chapter explores criminal justice research that
addresses the issue of leadership. Although much of this
literature is overly prescriptive, we provide an overview of
those few pieces of research that empirically test theoretical
models of leadership and make some recommendations for
future research. In addition, we present a model of leadership
education that was in operation in a department of corrections.
This model suggests future concerns that criminal justice
administrators need to consider to be effective leaders.
LEADERSHIP DEFINED
Four distinct but not separate ideas about administration guide
our definitions of leadership. First, leadership is a process that
effectively accomplishes organizational goals. Leadership
cannot be conceptually separated from organizational
effectiveness (Tosi, Rizzo, and Carroll, 1986) and the
accomplishment of objectives. Second, administrators can learn

leadership skills. Even though the process of leadership is
complex, we believe it can be learned and applied to the
effective administration of criminal justice organizations. Much
of criminal justice management literature assumes that effective
leadership can be taught, and millions of dollars have been
spent since the 1960s by criminal justice organizations,
especially police, to develop training modules that help
administrators accomplish organizational goals. Although there
may be little or no value in knowing the “correct” style of
leadership, the characteristics of good leaders as identified by
empirical research can serve as the basis of suggestions and
recommendations to criminal justice administrators. These
leadership characteristics, however, are always subject to the
tasks, functions, and objectives the organization expects to
accomplish. In addition, criminal justice research has examined
the many variables affecting leadership and ultimately
subordinate outcomes. Take, for example, the issue of emotional
intelligence and its relationship to leadership. The research
literature of the 1990s and the early part of the twenty-first
century had focused directly on the power of emotional
components to leadership. The relationship, however, between
emotional intelligence and leadership is thorny and
problematical (Weinberger, 2009).
Techniques of influence: Strategies that gain the compliance of
subordinates and are essential to the leadership process.
Third, leadership is a group process. To accomplish
organizational objectives, leaders must influence a number of
people, or, to put it simply: no group, no leader. The process of
leadership must thus be examined in light of the strategies
leaders use to get people to achieve the tasks necessary for
organizational existence and survival. Ostensibly, we may be
talking about methods of compliance and power in
organizations. techniques of influence, used singly or in
combination, that affect the leadership process:
1. Legitimate request. A person complies with an agent's
request because the person recognizes the agent's “right” as a

leader to make such a request.
2. Instrumental compliance. A person is induced to alter his or
her behavior by an agent's implicit or explicit promise to ensure
some tangible outcome desired by the person.
3. Coercion. A person is induced to comply by an agent's
explicit or implicit threat to ensure adverse outcomes if the
person fails to do so.
4. Rational persuasion. An agent convinces a person that the
suggested behavior is the best way for the person to satisfy his
or her needs or to attain his or her objectives.
5. Rational faith. An agent's suggestion is sufficient to evoke
compliance by a person without the necessity for any
explanation.
6. Inspirational appeal. An agent persuades a person that there
is a necessary link between the requested behavior and some
value important enough to justify the behavior.
7. Indoctrination. A person acts because of induced
internalization of strong values relevant to the desired behavior.
8. Information distortion. A person is unconsciously influenced
by an agent's limiting, falsifying, or interpreting information in
a way conducive to compliance.
9. Situational engineering. A person's attitudes and behavior are
indirectly influenced by an agent's manipulation of relevant
aspects of the physical and social situation.
10. Personal identification. A person imitates an agent's
attitudes and behavior because the person admires or worships
the agent.
11. Decision identification. An agent allows a person to
participate in and have substantial influence over the making of
a decision, thereby gaining the person's identification with the
final choice.
Think of how administrators in criminal justice use any one or a
combination of these techniques to influence their subordinates
and lead their agencies. For example, the prison warden who
rules his institution with an iron fist employs coercion as a
method of leadership, while the police sergeant who suggests to

the beat officer that cordial interactions with citizens are
essential to effective police work is using persuasion. Effective
leaders, however, are able to get subordinates to work toward
the stated objectives of the organization regardless of the
method.
Techniques of leadership are not the same as styles of
leadership. A style of leadership consists of all the techniques a
leader uses to achieve organizational goals. The prison warden
who employs coercion, information distortion, and
indoctrination as techniques of influence with inmates and
corrections officers is exhibiting an autocratic style of
leadership. Later in the chapter, we explore other styles of
leadership, some of which are more effective than others in
criminal justice administration.
Fourth, leadership in public bureaucracies, such as criminal
justice agencies, is inherently political and must be examined
within the political arena. Leadership in organizations is often
discussed with an internal focus. Little is said about the
external nature of leadership, even though an external view is
critical to a complete understanding of how public agencies are
run. A common criticism of applying research findings on
leadership in private or public organizations has been its limited
value given the political contexts within which public
organizations operate. In fact, some would say that the lack of
research attention to the external and political nature of
leadership makes many existing theories on leadership of little
or no value to those who operate public bureaucracies (Rainey,
2014).
Some have suggested that criminal justice organizations are
unique entities with well-defined histories and legal contexts.
To understand leadership within these organizations requires a
comprehension of how these elements further constrain criminal
justice leadership. Correctional leadership, especially within the
context of prisons and the role of the courts in the management
and leadership of prisons, is now experiencing a crisis. In some
cases, prison leadership has been, once again, directed by the

courts. This type of direction has not been so evident since the
1960s. The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, for example, has been placed under the authority
of the U. S. Supreme Court due to massive overcrowding since
2011. The state of California had been directed to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of its capacity by May 2013
to meet the expectations of the court. It came close to meeting
this goal but fell short and requested assistance and guidance to
meet constitutional standards as stipulated by the court. It is
interesting that this comes at a time when there are questions
regarding the effectiveness of the measures put in place to
supervise and monitor released offenders in the community
(Petersilia and Snyder, 2013).
There is no doubt this example suggests the unique position
that correctional systems are in and the importance of
leadership to them, yet it is not totally clear nor evident that as
public entities they are that different from other publicly funded
agencies, such as school systems and transportation agencies. A
growing body of literature both supports the uniqueness of
public agencies on the one hand and their similarity to private
organizations on the other hand and the relevance of leadership
(Daft, 2010). The student will have to review the existing
theories and models presented in this chapter to see if criminal
justice organizations are truly unique and therefore require
specific prescriptions regarding leadership or are so similar to
private businesses that no special circumstances or prescriptions
are required. Is good leadership just good leadership, whether it
is a police department or a fast food restaurant? Existing
theories of leadership are relevant to understanding the
leadership process within the criminal justice system, but some
consideration must be given as to how criminal justice
administrators, as public bureaucrats, lead their agencies. In
other words, we need an examination of the leadership
phenomenon as it operates within the political arena. For
example, take the career of former FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover, who was said to have employed charismatic and

legitimate forms of authority (techniques of influence) to lead
the FBI. This characterization, however, does not describe the
political relationships that made him an effective leader of a
large public bureaucracy over a fifty-year period, even though
many questioned the legality and morality of how he lead the
FBI (Powers, 1987). Leadership must thus be understood as a
process that reaches well beyond the formal boundaries of the
organization. Leadership in criminal justice agencies involves
convincing both subordinates and those outside the agencies in
the political arena that a particular method (usually the leader's)
is the best one for accomplishing organizational objectives.
Many leaders of criminal justice bureaucracies understand the
political nature of their positions, but they must equally be
aware of the vacillations in public interest in and concern about
their agencies. Thus, leadership of a criminal justice agency
requires flexibility, but, as Selznick (1957) reminds us, public
agencies must also clearly define their mission, structure this
mission into their hierarchy, maintain the values of the
organization that give it its identity, and control conflicts
among competing interests within the organization (see also
Wilson, 2000 for a similar discussion). In short, criminal justice
administrators must operate their organizations in tune with the
political realities of the external environment while
simultaneously maintaining their own role identities. Because of
the tension between changes in the external political
environment and administrators' desires to keep control of the
organization, leadership becomes a crucial and critical process.
Dealing with this tension makes criminal justice administration
difficult today, especially because many observers have noted
the increased politicization of criminal justice policy and
practice. Although the political process is integral to the
development of criminal justice policies and external influences
direct what policies will be developed, the degree to which
politics plays a role in leader decision making has become more
pronounced and, in some people's minds, detrimental to rational
policy making at the executive level of criminal justice

organizations (Gomez, 1995; Hickman, 2005; Woodford, 2006).
In sum, we can define leadership as invariably tied to the
effectiveness of an organization; as learnable, contingent on the
tasks, functions, and objectives of the organization; as carried
out in a group setting; and, probably most important of all for
criminal justice agencies, as focused on political and public
concerns.
THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP
Much of what we know about leadership comes from research
that takes one of three approaches. The first, and probably the
oldest, assumes that a leader is born, not made. This approach,
which tends to emphasize inherent personality traits, also
assumes that leadership can be evaluated on the basis of these
traits. Much research, however, questions whether personal
characteristics of “leadership” actually exist or, more important,
can be viewed separately from the situational context (Bass,
1981; Tosi, Rizzo, and Carroll, 1986:553). Thus, it is difficult
to know whether the leader's overall personality or particular
traits are critical to the leadership process. An authoritarian
police sergeant may be successful in a situation that requires a
clear, concise, and immediate response, such as a hostage
situation, yet this style of leadership may be totally ineffective
in a situation that requires deliberation and patience, such as
police officer training. Because a number of difficulties are
associated with this approach, those studying the leadership
process have largely abandoned it. Yet, some have suggested
that an important element of effective leadership is “emotional
intelligence.” This concept suggests that leaders are most
effective when they understand people in organizations and
have a passion about doing what is right in an organization such
that people perform for them. Research, however, on emotional
intelligence and leadership is lacking; nevertheless, it does
signal that trait approaches to leadership are not totally
dismissed by leadership proponents (Robbins and Judge,
2007:404; Weinberger, 2009).

Much contemporary research done on leadership now takes one
of two other approaches. The behavioral approach, which
emphasizes the behaviors of individual leaders, is the focus of
much of the criminal justice research on leadership. As
suggested by Tosi, Rizzo, and Carroll (1986:554–557),
behavioral approaches fall into two distinct areas: the
distribution of influence and the tasks and social behaviors of
leaders. The contingency approach, finally, is a product of the
1970s and tends to emphasize multiple variables, particularly
situational variables that constrain leadership. These situational
variables include characteristics of subordinates, organizational
context, and style of leadership.
Our review of behavioral and contingency models in this
chapter provides us with insight into theories of leadership from
the perspective of organizational behavior. Our next goal is to
see how and whether these theories fit the actual leadership
process in criminal justice organizations. We begin our review
with an examination of the behavioral approaches.
Behavioral Models
Because of the many problems associated with the character
trait approach to understanding leadership, researchers have
increasingly focused on behaviors instead. This approach
suggests that effective leadership depends on how leaders
interact with their subordinates. Part of this approach is using
behavioral models, a set of leadership theories that focus on the
interaction of leaders and subordinates. More important, the
behavioral approach accentuates how leaders get subordinates to
accomplish organizational tasks, a process known as initiating
structures. Using a behavioral approach, for example, we would
be interested in knowing the ways in which the warden of a
prison interacts with administrative staff, treatment specialists,
and corrections officers so that the tasks essential to the
prison's mission are completed. Behavioral models: A set of
leadership theories that focus on the interaction of leaders and
subordinates.
The behavioral approach is also concerned with how employees

are able to achieve personal goals within the organization at the
same time that they accomplish its central tasks. In our
example, we would be interested in what the prison warden does
to accommodate or consider staff opinions, ideas, and feelings
about the day-to-day workings of the prison. Do the corrections
officers feel supported? Do treatment personnel feel they have a
central role? Is there room for advancement in the prison's
hierarchy? These two concepts, consideration for subordinates
and initiating structures, guide the behavioral approach to
leadership. They evolved from two sets of leadership studies
done in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s: the Ohio State
studies and the Michigan studies. In addition, a popular model
of supervision was created at this time; it is known as the
managerial grid. Originally devised by Blake and Mouton
(1964), this grid was based on two dimensions of behavior —
concern for people and concern for production—that are
analogous to the concepts of consideration and initiating
structure. Fundamentally, according to Blake and Mouton, the
most effective manager is equally concerned with high levels of
production among employees and their needs. The managerial
grid has been extensively applied to criminal justice (see
Duffee, 1986). Here, however, we will not focus on the grid
itself but instead present the original research from which it was
derived.
The Ohio State studies, which began in the late 1940s,
concluded that leadership could be examined on the two
dimensions of consideration and initiating structure.
Consideration is the leader's expression of concern for
subordinates' feelings, ideas, and opinions about job-related
matters. Considerate leaders are concerned about employees,
develop trust between leaders and subordinates, and more often
than not develop good communication. Initiating structure is the
leader's direction of subordinates toward specific goals. The
role of the leader is to make sure that an adequate structure is
available for employees so that organizational objectives are
accomplished. The Ohio State studies concluded that effective

leadership is present in an organization when the levels of
consideration and initiating structure are high among leaders.
Ohio State studies: A behavioral-based set of studies that
examined leadership on two dimensions of organization:
consideration and initiating structure.
As suggested by Hellriegel, Slocum, and Woodman (1995),
however, the central limitation of the Ohio State studies was a
failure to recognize the importance of specific situations in the
leadership process. The police sergeant who heads a tactical
unit, for example, does not need to be considerate of employees
when faced with an emergency situation; rather, the sergeant
needs to delineate roles and duties to patrol officers in the unit
as quickly as possible. A high degree of initiating structure, in
other words, is critical. The Ohio State studies thus seem
applicable only to specific situations where both consideration
and initiating structure are appropriate.
The Michigan studies, in contrast, sought to dichotomize the
leadership process into two dimensions of supervisory behavior:
production-centered and employee-centered. We know that not
all supervisors have the same outlook toward their jobs,
employees, and tasks required to meet the organization's
objectives and goals. Some police sergeants, as immediate
supervisors, are interested in high activity by their subordinates,
whether that be ticket writing, arrests, or some other police
performance measure. Other police sergeants are concerned with
the perceptions of rank-and-file officers about their roles in the
organization. These supervisors care about how officers fit into
the organizational hierarchy and about their level of satisfaction
with their work. According to the Michigan studies, the
effective leader attempts to be employee-centered, a behavior
that in turn engenders productive subordinates. It is
questionable, however, whether the phenomenon of leadership
can be understood as either employee-centered or production-
centered. Michigan studies: A behavioral-based set of studies
that examined leadership on two dimensions of supervisory
behavior: production-centered and employee-centered.

The findings of both studies, in fact, have serious problems
that limit their application to criminal justice organizations.
First, it is not clear that either the Ohio State studies or the
Michigan studies adequately assessed the concept of leadership.
We are concerned here with the methodological problem of
construct validity. Do these studies actually measure the notion
of leadership? Distinctions must be made, for example, between
leadership and power. Does the prison guard who befriends an
inmate and is respected by the inmate exhibit some type of
leadership or what is known as referent power? How do we
know what factor is operating in this relationship? How can we
separate the two processes both conceptually and practically?
Because much of the behavioral research has not made
distinctions between these concepts, it is not evident that
leadership itself is being studied. The same point can be made
about distinctions between leadership and authority. (For
further discussion of the concepts of power and authority, see
Chapter 9.)
A second concern is that much of the leadership research within
the behavioral framework is based on convenient but limited
conceptualizations of the leadership process. By viewing
leadership in a dichotomous fashion, we are creating for
ourselves, as researchers, an easy method for exploring the
process while limiting our overall understanding of it.
Dichotomies are convenient, yet they do not always provide us
with an explanation that is both testable and comprehensive.
Take, for example, police sergeants. Can we understand their
leadership behavior simply by stating that they are either
employee-centered or production-oriented supervisors? Isn't it
realistic to say that any sergeant could be both? For that matter,
couldn't a sergeant exhibit other leadership behaviors besides
merely these two?
More important, isn't a sergeant's leadership approach highly
influenced by the tasks to be accomplished, along with the
technology available? A task may require subordinates to follow
a predetermined set of policies and procedures as the only

acceptable or the only tested way of accomplishing that task.
The sergeant of a tactical unit, for example, may need a
production-oriented style of leadership because of the nature of
the work—many dangerous tasks and highly uncertain
situations. Thus, to suggest that in criminal justice
organizations one approach to leadership is more applicable
than another approach to leadership is simplistic and not
sufficient to explain the intricacies of the leadership process in
those organizations.
Third, our concern with external validity requires us to question
the application of research findings done largely in private
organizations or public organizations, such as criminal justice.
Is it possible for the police sergeant or the corrections manager
to be employee-centered in the same way as a bank manager? In
addition, what does “employee-centered” mean in the context of
the expected roles of both supervisor and subordinate in
criminal justice organizations? How are the dimensions of
leadership identified by this body of research affected by the
tasks of the organization? In attempting to be employee-
centered, is the police sergeant constrained by the tasks
required? In short, is leadership affected by the situation and
the tasks of the supervisor and the subordinate?
With these three criticisms in mind, we must be cautious in
applying the findings from either the Ohio State studies or the
Michigan studies to the workings of middle-level managers or
administrators in the criminal justice system. Instead, we can
say that these behavioral studies were the first to address the
concept of leadership in an accessible way, and much of the
research in criminal justice leadership has been rooted in these
studies. Although we are somewhat critical of this research, we
believe that the application and testing of these theoretical
models in criminal justice organizations have provided the
incentive to view the leadership process in a comprehensive
fashion. Recent leadership research has been directed toward
understanding the situation in criminal justice organizations.
This research is rooted in contingency theories of leadership,

which we discuss next. Contingency Theories Contingency
theories of leadership differ from both trait and behavioral
theories in emphasizing the situation or context. Examining
various situational variables is central to understanding
leadership in organizations, according to contingency theorists.
We can see how this approach is useful for studying leadership
in criminal justice organizations. The lieutenant in a prison, for
example, is constrained by situational factors in dealing with
both corrections officers and prisoners. Prison officials cannot
exercise total power; depending on the organizational structure
of the prison, there are limits to what can be done to lead
groups toward organizational objectives. The leadership style
employed is therefore contingent on the situational aspects of
the prison and the nature of the relationship between keeper and
kept.
Contingency theories: A group of leadership theories that stress
the importance of the situation to leadership effectiveness in the
accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives.
The two contingency theories we examine in this chapter,
Fiedler's contingency model and the path–goal theory, both have
distinctive elements that contribute to our …

3 Vision Visioning is relatively easy. Casting a shared and clea.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 3 Vision Visioning is relatively easy. Casting a shared and clea.docx

Similar to 3 Vision Visioning is relatively easy. Casting a shared and clea.docx (20)

More from jesusamckone

More from jesusamckone (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

3 Vision Visioning is relatively easy. Casting a shared and clea.docx