Strategic Leadership in Criminal Justice - Essay Example

Strategic Leadership in Criminal Justice Designing of a Promotion Appraisal Method for Police Officers Larry Homes is an experienced and seasoned police officer who serves as an Officer-in-Charge of Riverdale Station. The police department has assigned Homes with responsibility to come out with a tentative proposal regarding a new appraisal method for promoting police officers. It is but obvious that the need for such an appraisal is being felt because the police department is not satisfied with the existing appraisal methods used to ascertain the capability of the officers for promotion purposes. Besides, the other reason for the requirement of such a proposal is that several senior officers are expected to retire in the next one to two years. So a dire need will be felt to promote the lower ranking officers to higher posts. Hence, the police department emphatically feels that the creation of a systematic procedure for appraising the lower ranking officers for promotion purposes will help assure the quality and reliability of the policing in the area. Though Larry is left with varied options regarding the designing of the new appraisal system, he is apprehensive in the sense that he does not want the new system to be unjust and biased towards the junior officers. At the same time he intends the new system to be innovative and ingenious. Larry Homes has before him a possible choice of varied existing appraisal methods. These methods include: Annual Job Performance Appraisals For years, the police department has resorted to this method for assessing the promotability of the junior officers. This appraisal method primarily relied on the ratings extended by an immediate supervisor regarding the subordinates under him or her (McConnell, 2005, p. 248). This appraisal method had its advantages in the sense that it assured apt cooperation between the supervisors and the subordinates (McConnell, 2005, p. 248). However, a majority of the junior officers in the police force are not satisfied with this appraisal method. They feel that the promotability of an employee needs to be measured by using predominantly subjective criteria (Kulik, 2004, p. 92). In that context, the junior officers are of the view that that an appraisal method relying on the opinion of only a single supervisor is open to doubts pertaining to its reliability (Murphy, 1998, p. 148). Besides, giving too much reliance to this promotion method could have a debilitating impact on the moral of the police force. Assessment Centres Time and again in the past, the police administration has relied on professional assessment centres to appraise the junior officers for promotion purposes. Again, it needs to be mentioned that these assessment centres were found to be lacking in several ways. Considering a steep reduction in the budget of the police force, the senior officers feel that these assessment centres may prove to be too costly and may not turn out to be cost effective (Sims, 1998, p. 91). Besides, experience has time and again shown that the junior officers tend to be little participative and cooperative in the appraisals carried out by these assessment centres (Sims, 1998, p. 91). Besides, these assessment centres have been found to not to extend ample consideration to the opinion of the immediate officers and peers in the appraisal process. Officer Homes feel that the existing appraisal methods do have ample relevance and validity, irrespective of the faults and lacunas attributed to them. Yet, Holmes is also aware of the responsibility of making the proposed appraisal system more officers friendly and acceptable to the force. Though Homes intends to retain a measure of the existing appraisal methods, including Annual Job Performance Appraisals and Assessment Centres, being a senior and experienced officer, he also has some innovative and new ideas in this respect. One major idea in that context is the usage of promotability ratings for promoting the junior officers (Cederblom, 1991, p. 29). The problem is that promotability ratings have seldom been used for appraisal in the public safety organizations (Cederblom, 1991, p. 27). Besides Homes is also doubtful as to the nature and format of the intended promotability ratings. Holmes feels that both the supervisors and the immediate peers should have a say in the assessment of these promotability ratings (Cederblom, 1991, p. 30). This way they will reflect better on the performance of a junior officer, without resorting to being abjectly biased and prejudiced. In the mean time the intended new assessment procedure has given way to a marked rift in the police force. The younger officers who have better academic qualifications and are relatively new to the force, do support the usage of assessment centres for promotions, which resort to oral and written examinations, a scored resume, psychological evaluations of promotional potential etc. The officers with less distinguished academic background, but who have had a distinguished career do support the usage of annual appraisals. The other thing is that Holmes idea of promotability ratings, drawing from the opinions of supervisors and peers has also leaked out. Again the junior officers are divided on the fairness of this concept. The dilemma before Holmes is to come out with a promotion appraisal method, which is acceptable to a majority of the junior staff. Leadership Approach in Such a Scenario It goes without saying that the situation under consideration presents a potential leadership dilemma for Larry Homes. Under such circumstances, it is very crucial for Larry Homes to resort to an apt leadership approach to solicit the cooperation of the important stakeholders. The assessment appraisal model proposed by Homes should not only be able to strike a chord amongst the senior administrators, but must also be such as to invite the contributions, interest and support of the junior officers for which it is meant. Under such circumstances, it is vital for Homes to weigh the pros and cones of varied leadership theories, in the light of the envisaged goals and objectives (Rickards, 2005, p. 12). It is quite evident that irrespective of the authority vested in Homes by the police department and his past experience, the task assigned to him is such that it cannot be accomplished without gathering inputs from the potential stakeholders. Besides, the proposed appraisal model ought to be such as to be acceptable to the salient stakeholders. The choice of leadership approach under such circumstances must take into consideration these aspirations. Homes simply cannot resort to an authoritative approach, because neither he has all the information to come out with the appraisal policy, nor he has the committed support of all the junior employees (Wren, 1995, 298). Beside, under the given circumstances, Homes has the time to gain the commitment and support of the junior employees (Wren, 1995, p. 298). Nor can Homes delegate the responsibility for framing the appraisal policy to any junior officer or officers, as it is him who has been assigned the responsibility to chalk out the basic framework of the requisite appraisal policy (Wren, 1995, p. 89). A participative approach towards leadership seems to me most appropriate in such a situation as it promises varied advantages. In case Homes invites the delegates and representatives of junior officers and supervisors for suggestions, they are bound to extend vital inputs (Northouse, 2011, p. 218). Besides, this will allay the misapprehensions of the supervisors and the varied opinion makers amongst the junior officers in the sense that they will have a feel that they do have a say in the framing of the promotion appraisal policy (Northouse, 2011, p. 218). This approach will do much to secure the sincerity and commitment of the important stakeholders towards the new planned policy (Northouse, 2011, p. 219). This participative approach in no way will compromise the right and authority of Homes to have a final say in the designing of the promotion appraisal policy (Northouse, 2011, p. 219). Homes can exploit the participative approach towards leadership to convey to the representatives of the junior officers, the benefits and advantages of varied appraisal methods intended to be incorporated by him in the new policy. He can communicate to the junior officers that the use of assessment centres will assure that the selected officers have the requisite essential qualification and those with better academic achievements and aptitude do get rewarded. At the same time the resorting to Annual Job Performance Appraisals and promotability ratings will make it certain that those junior officers who have performed a distinguished and exemplary service do get the credit for it on the basis of the reviews extended by their supervisors and peers. The participation of the peers in the review process will make it certain that the potential candidates do not get penalized owing to the biases or prejudices of their supervisors. This will make the promotability review balanced and fair. Such an approach will go a long way in allaying the fears of different shades of opinion and talent pools existing amongst the junior officers. This will also help the proposed policy incorporate varied spectrums of opinion existing in the force, thereby making it more acceptable to all and having a salubrious impact on the moral of the police force. A participative approach on the part of Homes in the given dilemma will dilute the cynicism of the varied stakeholders and will make them feel empowered and involved in the decision making process. Word Count: 1500 References Cederblom, Douglas. (1991). Promotability Ratings: An Underused Promotion Method for Public Safety Organizations. Public Personnel Management, 20(1), 27-31. Kulik, Carol T. (2004). Human Resources for the Non-HR Manager. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McConnell, John H.(2005). How to Develop Essential HR Policies and Procedures. New York: AMACOM. Murphy, KR. (1998). Performance Evaluation in Work Settings. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 141-159. Northouse, Peter G. (2011). Introduction to Leadership. New York: Sage Publications. Rickards, Tudor. (2005). Dilemmas of Leadership. London: Routledge. Sims, R Ronald. (1998). Reinventing Training and Development. Westport: Quorum Books. Wren, Thomas J. (1995). The Leader’s Companion. London: Free Press. Read More