Leadership in the Field of Criminal Justice - Term Paper Example

Section/# This brief analysis will consider the key components, factors, and actions that contribute to authentic and effective leadership. Furthermore, this leadership will be analyzed under the lens of those in leadership positions in the field of criminal justice. As such, the analysis will work to create a series of implications and recommendations based on what skills and best practices can be employed to make an individual into an effective leader within the criminal justice trade. Definitions of terms such as leadership and management can become blurred and easily confused once they are applied to a given situation. Although the terms have clear connotation and denotation in written and spoken language, when they are put into practice and a firm definition of which one leads to another can be a bit troublesome. For this purpose, this brief analysis will work to scrutinize leadership and management as they relate to the field of criminal justice. It is additionally important to note that each of the questions that this analysis will work to scrutinize have strong interconnected dependence and relationships between one another whereby by answering and analyzing one of the questions parallels and strong inference as well as development can be drawn on the other questions which are analyzed. Accordingly the following questions will be asked, discussed, and analyzed: What does it take to become an authentic leader who people want to follow, does every manager need to be a leader, why is leadership portrayed in terms of how managers manage people, why is leadership portrayed in terms of how managers manage people, how can you be said to lead people when you have the authority to tell them what to do, and what does it take to become an authentic leader who people want to follow? Although the answers to each of these questions vary with relation to the individual, form of management, particular leadership style, and setting in which it is put into practice, broad and overarching implications can be drawn from the applications of the answers to the above questions as will be demonstrated in this brief analysis. With respect to the first question regarding what it takes to be an authentic leader, it should be noted that authenticity is determined from the standpoint of those employees that have the ability to see both the words, actions, and implied intent of the leader on a daily basis. Authentic leadership is rightly the first question that this analysis will seek to answer as it forms the backbone of effective leadership. Without authenticity there would be no underlying trust in the words, directions, and actions of the leader. As such, developing a baseline of authentic leadership is an absolute necessity towards winning the trust of those employees that are under one’s purview and supervision (McGown/Miller, 2001). Authenticity however goes beyond merely meaning what one says and performing actions based upon one’s words. An authentic leader is also one who does not imitate the leadership style of someone else. Many times in the workplace, a sycophant will work to mirror the exact leadership style of their own boss or even the leadership style of the highest individual within the given structure. This form of abject servility almost always has the effect of losing the trust of one’s employees. This is due partly to the fact that they infer that their leader is willing to do or say anything in the vain hope of being rewarded and noticed by the individual they are emulating. As such, it is perceived among employees of such a manager that the concerns, work load, and personal issues as they relate to the workers are of secondary concern to such a manager. Therefore, when individuals see that their leader has very little strength of character and is not capable of thinking for him/herself, they begin to lose faith that the decisions and choices that the manager makes on a daily basis are reflections of good character and core convictions instead of the desire to please a superior or curry favor among a given group of power holders within the organization (Owens, 2012) Therefore, an authentic leader does not have to portray a rigid personality type in order to be considered a good and authentic leader. Such a requirement would necessarily winnow the resulting examples of good leaders to just a handful of individuals that were born with an innate talent. Instead, authentic leadership can be defined as a style of leadership that is unique, builds confidence in the employees, and is not merely a reflection of another leader/manager. Furthermore, it is necessary to note that authentic leadership does not imply that the manager/leader is not flawed or makes certain mistakes. Instead, these mistakes and flaws can be exhibited in an authentic leader and serve to augment him/her in the eyes of employees as they can see the progression of ideas and management style as a process of learning and development that they group experiences. With respect to law enforcement, authentic leadership is quite certainly at a premium. Due to the fact that the law enforcement field is one that usually consists of high stress and long hours as well as a defined and rigid power structure, it is especially important that leaders and managers do not give in to the pitfalls of sycophancy/servility as it relates to leadership/management styles. Unfortunately, the desire to make oneself appear in a better light to his/her leadership has caused many individuals in this field to behave in this manner. Beyond minimizing the individual in the eyes of fellow management, this practice serves to greatly weaken the power that a manager wields on his/her employees. As employees see that the manager does not exhibit free thinking and decision making of their own and only works to mirror the behavior and attitudes of their superiors, key elements of trust are lost. Likewise, in the work of law enforcement, the power structure Is more rigid than in most other forms of work; this oftentimes lends itself to an environment in which individuals crave power and attention to such a degree they are willing to become servile in order to achieve this goal. Furthermore, effective leadership creates a desire on those that are under its authority to follow such an individual. This concept is unique in that although management implies the power to coerce individuals in acting a certain way; effective leadership must instill the desire to want to follow the directions of the leader. The effects of this desire to follow are amply displayed in the results that such leaders obtain from their employees. Unless managers an instill a desire among their employees, the ability to lead them and perform the tasks that are required are greatly and severely diminished. Whereas a coercive leader can likely force his/her employees to deliver a specific product in order to fulfill a need, the leader whose employees follow his/her instructions are much more likely to give of themselves, expend extra effort, and involve themselves more deeply and personally in the quality of their work (West, 2011). In this way, the work process can be explained on a personal and individual level. The manager/leader who can force his/her employees to deliver based on a tight deadline will doubtless not receive the same quality of project as the manager/leader who instructs his employees to work together so that they can fulfill the requirements placed upon them. With respect to the second question that this analysis will seek to answer – does every manager need to be a leader – the position that this paper will argue is yes, in fact they do. Regardless of the type of work that a manager is involved in, the basic understanding is that they have individuals under their purview and oversight. As such, leadership of these individuals is a necessity in order for the manager to perform his/her job in a satisfactory manner. What is meant by this is that leadership does not always have to be an active form of direction. Instead, exemplary leadership can imply that the manager is able to make an excellent example of how work should be accomplished and pass this example on to his/her employees. Although simplistic, this is a form of leadership. It should be noted that it is not necessary for every manager in every position to expertly reflect all of the multifaceted aspects of good leadership. In many cases, depending on the type of job that is being performed and the related specialty of the manager, the particular management style of the individual, and the group dynamic of the people under his/her charge, only certain aspects of effective leadership need be applied in order to accomplish the work and build effective teams. In this way, regardless of the scope of work, a good manager should engender leadership in order to direct and guide the energies of those individuals under their supervision. Rather than being forced to continually give direction of task management in order to direct employees as to what tasks they should perform and in what way they can do them, a far superior model relies on the ability of the manager to lead by example so that valuable time is not wasted on minute details and exhaustive instructions. Likewise, leadership engenders more than providing an example to employees. Depending on the type of managerial style and position in question, the manager will need to exercise their own unique leadership abilities to mould the employees under their care to the needs of the company, form, or organization in question. This type of leadership connects back to the previous question that concerned authentic leadership. As such, it should be the concern of the manager to represent an authentic leadership style that equally displays free thinking and concern for the needs of the employees and the organization at large (Bolt et al, 2007). With respect to the third question of this analysis – why leadership is portrayed in terms of how managers manage people – it should be understood that this is perhaps one of the most effective metrics to determine if the job of the manager is being performed according to the way in which it should be. When consideration is given to the ways in which management can be assessed and measured, the first rational explanation of this is to measure this from a perspective of those that are impacted by the changes and direction that management makes. Further, the job of the manager is perhaps one of the most difficult roles because it is not always assessed based upon what work the manager himself/herself has actually performed. As such, it is oftentimes unimportant the dedication, hard work, late hours etc that a manager has devoted to their job since the true measurement of managerial style/effectiveness can be easily assessed as a function of what types of work the employees under their care have contributed. Naturally, organizational structure plays a powerful role in determining to what extent the manager is held responsible for the outputs of their employees; however, it is safe to say that a common approach among upper management in determining the success of a particular department or section is to focus on the manager and determine what steps should be taken to improve the department under consideration (Singh, 2009). Likewise, many situations exist in which a manager of a particular group of employees attempts to allocate blame for a given mishap onto the employee(s) under his/her supervision; however, depending on the expertise and knowledge of the reviewing party, it is oftentimes determined that it was ultimately the responsibility of the manager to be familiar enough with the employees under their supervision and to keep close track of their progress and goals as to avert any such possible situations (Pearce, 2004). However, this is not to say that difficult employees do not exist it he workplace that can derail a given project and serve to bring undue attention onto the department. Although this is doubtless the case in some situations, it is ultimately the manager’s responsibility to be held responsible for the actions of those under their supervision and be acutely aware of any and all responsibilities they have delegated to them so that all projects are completed and met in a satisfactory manner. The final question which this brief analysis will cover regards how a manager can lead people when they have the authority to tell them what to do. This is an interesting dynamic that involves a host of factors; not the least of which involves the differing forms of power that the manager has at his/her disposal; coercive power vs reward power. It has been proven through a host of management studies that the exceptional manager employs both forms of power in direction the work flow and duties of their respective employees (Patel, 2012). One would be foolish to assume that reward power is the best form of management in the same way that they would be foolish to assume that coercive power is the best form of achieving a desired result. Used together in moderation and the correct quantities, both forms of power work together to achieve the results that a good manager should seek. However, it should be noted that reward power is generally a more acceptable tool to be used in achieving a desired result. In such a way, reward power should be utilized first in an attempt to motivate employees rather than threats and coercion to perform a given task based upon the repercussions if they do not. Many authors have referred to this dichotomy of coercion vs. reward power as carrot and the stick. In this simplistic definition one can see that the manager/leader can either offer the reward (carrot) or the stick (coercion) to reach a desired result with respect to the output level and task designation of their employees. The important point to note is that although the manager has the ability to coerce his/her employees into following their direction, the desired result is that they should not have to use this coercion in order to achieve their desired result. Beyond alienating the employees and providing a hostile work environment in which they do not have an innate desire to output, employers who regularly invoke their coercive power to achieve results face a battle of diminishing returns. Study after study has noted that although coercion can be effective in certain instances to provide cultural change and/or overcome a particular barrier, repeated use weakens the overall effectiveness of the leader and diminishes the respect that their employees have for him/her (Dorjgotov et al, 2012). The question over use of coercive power in management also lends itself to a further examination of leadership as a function of expert power and referent power. The ideal for which managers should strive is of course a situation in which workers perform tasks to the best of their abilities due to the fact that they wish to please the manager/leader. This type of behavior is referred to in management terms as expert power (Cite) This productivity born out of respect is of course far superior to any type of productivity born out of a fear of reprisal due to a substandard or incomplete work level. Further building upon this concept of performance due to appreciation for the manager is the concept of referent power. Referent power can be defined as employees seeking to meet and exceed the expectations of the employer due to the fact that they admire and seek to emulate the style of said employer. Even though the leader has the ability to exercise their coercive power, it is in the best interests of the team and the level and quality of the work they produce that such power should only be used sparingly. Such a realization leads back to the prior point that was discussed regarding the importance of managers being leaders. As such, if a manager can successfully lead their employees, the need for them to exercise their coercive power to reach the goals set before them is greatly reduced. In this way, effectively leadership engenders the ideal that even though power is available it should be used sparingly so as to build rapport among one’s employees and work to create a positive working environment where the employees seek to fulfill the needs of management not due to fear and the application of coercion but because they want to please the leader. In conclusion, proper managerial practices cannot be defined by a single carefully crafted designation; instead, the practice involves a host of factors that draw equally on the managers ability to build rapport with his/her employees, understand the complexities of human behavior, and be willing to lead by example. Furthermore, in order to generate respect, managers/leaders must shun the temptation to aggressively work to curry favor in the eyes of key stakeholders within the organization; understanding that by doing so they are greatly reducing the respect level that they might have among their own work groups. Lastly, with respect to the use of coercive vs reward power, a good manager will understand that the former is only to be used sparingly as overuse can dull its effect and cause the employees to have a negative view of the management style and personality of the manager. Regardless of the unique mechanisms that govern effective management/leadership, it can be concluded that regardless of the organization or field of specialty, fundamental best practices still exist and should be considered as a mark to strive for all involved in management/leadership positions. References Boldt, R. W., Witzel, M., Russell, C., & Jones, V. (2007). Replacing Coercive Power with Relationship Power. Reclaiming Children And Youth: The Journal Of Strength-Based Interventions, 15(4), 243-248. Hsin-Kuang, C., Chun-Hsiung, L., & Dorjgotov, B. (2012). THE MODERATING EFFECT OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 40(6), 1015-1024. McGowan, P., & Miller, J. (2001). Management vs. Leadership. School Administrator, 58(10), 32-34. OWENS, B. P., & HEKMAN, D. R. (2012). MODELING HOW TO GROW: AN INDUCTIVE EXAMINATION OF HUMBLE LEADER BEHAVIORS, CONTINGENCIES, AND OUTCOMES. Academy Of Management Journal, 55(4), 787-818. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0441 Patel, R. (2012). Rajarshi Leadership: A Key for Modern Management. Advances In Management, 5(8), 34-37. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy Of Management Executive, 18(1), 47-57. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12690298 Singh, A. (2009). Organizational Power in Perspective. Leadership & Management In Engineering, 9(4), 165-176. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)LM.1943-5630.0000018 West, G. (2011). Expert, coercive, legitimate, referent, and reward power bases as moderating variables upon the relationships between service, humility, and shared vision with affective organizational commitment and job satisfaction among members of the U.S. Navy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 71, Read More