The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm

PIJPSM
33,4

Effective leaders and leadership

in policing: traits, assessment,
development, and expansion

644
Received 4 December 2009
Revised 29 April 2010
Accepted 21 May 2010

Joseph A. Schafer
Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice,
Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Carbondale, Illinois, USA
Abstract
Purpose Police leaders and leadership remain understudied within existing criminal justice
scholarship. Using data derived from police supervisors participating in the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) National Academy program, the purpose of this paper is to examine effective
leaders and leadership. Specific consideration is given to the traits and habits of effective and
ineffective leaders, the assessment of leadership efficacy, the development of leaders, and the barriers
to the expansion of more effective leaders and leadership in contemporary policing.
Design/methodology/approach Surveys were administered to over 1,000 police supervisors.
Respondents ranked the traits and habits of effective and ineffective leaders, methods to evaluate
leadership efficacy, and barriers to the expansion of more effective leaders and leadership. Though a
convenience sample, the supervisors represent a diverse mix of police agencies of various sizes and
types from around the world.
Findings Ratings suggest respondents saw effective and ineffective leaders as expressing nearly
opposite sets of traits and habits. Efficacy was most strongly linked with integrity, work ethic,
communication, and care for personnel; ineffective leaders were characterized as failing to express
these traits. Respondents cast leadership development as a process best-achieved through a mixture of
training/education, experience, and feedback. Surprisingly, the most highly-rated barriers to the
expansion of effective leaders and leadership practices were not fiscal, but cultural, structural, and
political.
Research limitations/implications Findings suggest key policy implications for police
organizations and the policing profession. Many highly-rated traits and habits may be linked with
personality traits; this could complicate the capacity of leadership development initiatives to enhance
these behaviors. Results suggest development programs need to do more than simply expose students
to a diverse set of theories and perspectives of leadership; mentoring and guided experience were also
rated as helpful. Major barriers to the expansion of effective leadership were not issues easily or
quickly overcome, complicating the long-term prospects of enhancing the quality of leadership within
policing.
Originality/value Given the paucity of systemic and large-scale studies of police leadership, the
findings offer important parameters to guide future research efforts. Though some results validate
what might be assumed about police leadership, that validation is largely absent from the extant
literature. The results provide a starting basis to guide subsequent research assessing the outcomes,
evaluation, and development of police leaders.
Keywords Leadership development, Policing, Leaders
Paper type Research paper

Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies & Management
Vol. 33 No. 4, 2010
pp. 644-663
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-951X
DOI 10.1108/13639511011085060

The author thanks the men and women from National Academy sections 226-229 and 232-235 for
their cooperation and candor. Additional thanks to Dr John Jarvis, the FBI Academy Behavioral
Science Unit and the FBI National Academy Unit for their support of this research effort.

Organizational and individual outcomes are commonly attributed, at least in part, to

leadership or its absence. An examination of instances in which organizations have
experienced some level of failure in the form of corruption, misconduct, inefficacy, or
ineptitude can often be partially linked to the level, quality, and style of leadership.
This has been established both within policing (Baker, 2000; Dias and Vaughn, 2006;
Meese and Ortmeier, 2004) and in other government and private organizations (Garrett,
1999; Hall, 1980; OHara, 2005; McCabe, 2005). In the context of policing, it is often
presumed leadership shapes organizational efficacy, subordinate behavior, and both
individual and agency outputs. Despite the importance of leadership in shaping police
outcomes it has been contended that effective leaders are often lacking in organizations
(Haberfeld, 2006; Rowe, 2006) and scholars ought to devote more attention to
understanding leaders and leadership.
A robust literature has sought to describe leadership within corporate and military
settings. This has included treatments of the traits of effective leaders, assessing the
efficacy of leaders, developing leadership skills and habits, and expanding quality
leadership practices (Bass, 1990; Bass and Riggio, 2006; Burns, 2003; Kouzes and
Posner, 2002). In contrast, policing scholars have devoted limited empirical attention to
the consideration of how leadership efficacy is manifested, assessed, and developed.
Using data derived from two studies of police supervisors attending the FBI National
Academy program the present study seeks to advance understanding in these areas.
The study examines supervisors perceptions of the traits and habits of effective and
ineffective leaders, the assessment of leader efficacy, the development of leadership
skills, and the barriers to the expansion of effective leadership. Results hold important
policy implications for efforts intending to advance the level and quality of leaders and
leadership within police organizations.
Literature review
Despite being a broadly understood notion, leadership is a concept that has defied a
consensus in definition and measurement (House and Podsakoff, 1994). In one of the
penultimate treatments of theory and research on leadership, Bass (1990) observed
there are seemingly as many definitions of leadership as there are scholars
endeavoring to study this concept. Bass articulated common unifying themes across a
wide range of definitions, noting that leadership involves influencing a group or
individual into compliance through the leaders charisma, power, persuasion, or other
behaviors. In general, such efforts are made with the intent of creating structure and/or
coordinating effort with the ultimate hope of achieving some prescribed goal.
Policing scholarship has given relatively limited empirical consideration to matters
of leadership. Classical perspectives on policing tended to cast leaders as operating
within a narrow range of styles and having tense relationships with subordinates
(Manning, 1997; Reuss-Ianni, 1983; Rowe, 2006; Van Maanen, 1984). More recent
empirical assessments have suggested an alternative characterization by framing
leaders as utilizing a divergent set of styles that go beyond traditional, autocratic
approaches that once dominated policing (Adlam, 2002; Brehm and Gates, 1993;
Brewer et al., 1995; Engel, 2002; Kuykendall, 1977; Kuykendall and Unsinger, 1982;
Sutherland and Reuss-Ianni, 1992) though clear connections between supervisory style
and policing outputs have not been established (Engel, 2001). Survey data from police
officers suggest a preference for supportive and participatory leadership styles

Effective
leadership in
policing
645

PIJPSM
33,4

646

( Jermier and Berkes, 1979; Witte et al., 1990) and tentative evidence supports that
police executives might by similarly open-minded in employing non-traditional
systems (Hoover and Mader, 1990; Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1958; Steinheider and
Wuestewald, 2008; Zhao et al., 1995).
Extant literature discussing leadership in policing can be generally categorized into
two groups. First, a body of writings (particularly textbooks) has addressed how
general theories of organizations and leadership might be applied within policing
contexts (Adlam and Villiers, 2003; Haberfeld, 2006; Meese and Ortmeier, 2004), often
with little or no empirical validation (Collins, 2005; Domonoske, 2006)[1]. Second,
empirical research has sought to describe how ranked personnel go about engaging in
the acts of leadership, management, and supervision, particularly through the
development of behavioral typologies (Brehm and Gates, 1993; Engel, 2001). Many
studies in this tradition employed limited methodological designs and analytical
techniques, likely contributing to inconsistent findings (see Bass and Riggio, 2006;
Engel, 2002; House and Aditya, 1997). Very little consideration has been given to the
specific behaviors (versus operational styles) of leaders, as well as the assessment and
development of leaders.
Traits and habits
Students and scholars of leadership have long sought to characterize those traits and
habits that undergird the efforts of those deemed to be particularly effective (Burns,
2003). Early studies of leadership tended to focus on the great man/great woman
theory (House and Podsakoff, 1994; Schackleton, 1995); a well regarded leader was
studied in a biographical format to derive an understanding of their success. Over time,
studies expanded this approach to consider samples of recognized leaders (e.g.
Kirkpatrick and Locke, 1991). Though research has not always found clear causal links
between a given trait and leadership efficacy (Bass, 1990; Burns, 2003), trait-based
thinking still dominates both leadership scholarship and corporate leadership
literature (Collins, 2001; Kouzes and Posner, 2002; Maxwell, 2005).
Scholarship considering police leaders has focused on formal supervisors (who may
or may not exemplify leadership behaviors) rather than on leaders (who may or may
not hold supervisory positions) (Cohen, 1980; Pursley, 1974; Van Maanen, 1983). Engel
(2001, 2002) offers broad categorizations of supervisory styles (e.g. traditional,
innovative, supportive, and active), an approach helpful in establishing typologies of
supervisory styles to support quantitative studies, particularly efforts to assess how
leadership styles link with outcomes. As with any typology, however, there is risk that
categories must be constructed in a broad fashion to support analytical efforts. As a
consequence less is understood about the importance of the individual traits and habits
upon which categories are based.
Kellerman (2004b) critiques the prevailing tendency to frame leadership as a
benevolent process, noting this constricts understanding the realities of leadership. She
and others contend leaders may have limitations, employ less-than-ideal means, and
are ineffective, at least in part, while still generally achieving their objectives (Bailey,
1988). In the past two decades leadership scholars have begun to consider leaders from
a different perspective by examining those who have failed, derailed, or exemplify
the dark side of leadership (Clements and Washbush, 1999; Einarsen et al., 2007;
Gardner, 1990; Kellerman, 2000, 2004a; Kets de Vries, 1993). Those examining

ineffective leadership contend recognizing and discussing failures and limitations will
help make leaders more effective. Such consideration has focused on the leadership and
personal shortcomings of corporate executives (Einarsen et al. 2007; Finkelstein, 2003;
Kellerman, 2004a,b; McCall and Lombardo, 1983; McCauley, 2004; Schackleton, 1995;
Swartz and Watkins, 2003) and government officeholders (Barras, 1998; Stanton, 2003).
Largely absent from this body of scholarship is consideration of poor leadership within
policing contexts.
Assessing efficacy
Leadership efficacy is an elusive concept, in part because perspectives on whether a
leader and his/her behaviors are effective have a subjective element. One persons
self-centered egotist is another persons confident visionary. In addition, the
assessment of leadership efficacy is a methodologically and conceptually difficult
process (Clark and Clark, 1990; Howard, 2007; London et al., 2007). Across policing and
other occupational contexts researchers have used a variety of definitions, methods,
and measures, contributing to the chaotic, contradictory, and inconsistent findings
(Bass, 1990). The assessment of leadership efficacy is particularly complex in policing
given the absence of clearly accepted objectives agencies themselves are expected to
achieve. This ambiguity complicates the ability to link leadership efficacy with
organizational outcomes or outputs. Nonetheless, formal police leaders (e.g.
supervisors) are expected to influence subordinates and organizational outcomes
(Adlam, 2002; Engel, 2001, 2002; Engel and Worden, 2003; Trojanowicz, 1980) despite
geographic and temporal separation (Brown, 1988; Lipsky, 1980; Lundman, 1979; Van
Maanen, 1983).
In assessing efficacy, supervisory style and influence have been demonstrated
along a number of traditional policing outcomes, including discretionary enforcement
decisions (Allen and Maxfield, 1983; Engel, 2000; Mastrofski et al., 1994; Smith, 1984),
the use of force (Engel, 2000), and officer misconduct (Bittner, 1983; Brehm and Gates,
1993; Brown, 1988; Huberts et al., 2007; Reiss, 1971), though inconstant findings
abound (see, Allen, 1982; Allen and Maxfield, 1983; Brehm and Gates, 1993; Brown,
1988; Engel, 2002; Mastrofski et al., 1994; Muir, 1977; Reiss, 1971; Smith, 1984; Wilson,
1968). More recent and methodological rigorous findings offer stronger evidence that
supervisors influence subordinate personnel (Engel, 2000, 2001, 2002; Engel and
Worden, 2003)[2]. Far less is known about the measurement of leadership efficacy
beyond considerations of officer performance, output, and conduct. What other metrics
might be used and who should provide input on the performance of a given leader;
followers, peers, constituents, supervisors, the leader her/himself (Clark and Clark,
1990)? As indicated in corporate leadership efficacy writings these efforts can be
challenging as expanding our conception and measurement of whether a leader is
effective invokes a number of methodological difficulties (Maxwell, 2005).
Developing and expanding effective leadership
American policing is dominated by small agencies (three-quarters of agencies employ
fewer than 25 sworn officers; see Hickman and Reaves, 2006) regulated by relatively
few standards for structure and operation. Most agencies have little or no formalized
protocols to develop current or future leaders (Anderson et al., 2006; London et al.,
2007). Other training demands and mandates may dominate agency training resources

Effective
leadership in
policing
647

PIJPSM
33,4

648

and employee development efforts. Though numerous arguments can be crafted in

support of leadership development, the best way to succeed in that process is unclear
within existing research (House and Aditya, 1997; House and Podsakoff, 1994).
Whether and how leadership can be developed (either among front-line personnel
and/or among existing supervisors and leaders) remains an open empirical question.
Formal and ad hoc leadership development initiatives have been criticized for
emphasizing competencies over competence and emphasizing leadership behaviors to
manage circumstances that are simple and stable (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Popular
police leadership development efforts include the every officer is a leader orientation
(Anderson et al., 2006) and the West Point model (International Association of Chiefs
of Police, n.d.)[3]. Both models use the aforementioned approach of exposing
participants to the dominant theories of leaders, followers, leadership, and
organizations. Despite the popularity of such development initiatives there is an
absence of clear and compelling evidence that leadership efficacy can be enhanced or
developed, either in general or within policing contexts. The field of leadership
development is left with a set of noble ideas, but scant validation these ideals actually
develop better leaders[4]. Miller et al. (2009) offer a rare exception, finding a positive
change in leadership areas based on pre/post scores on the California Personality
Inventory. These results represent a lone finding using a single metric in a single
program. More systematic evidence of the efficacy of development efforts is sorely
needed. Where evidence of efficacious private sector leadership development has been
found, programs tend to marry training, education, and application, developing both
technical competencies and an awareness of the humanistic dimensions of leaders and
followers (Bass, 1990; Bass and Riggio, 2006; Day and OConnor, 2003; Mumford and
Manley, 2003).
Given the anecdotal lamentations of the lack of effective leaders and leadership
behaviors within policing (Haberfeld, 2006; Rowe, 2006) it might be presumed
expansion could suffer some degree of constraint. Though resource limitations are
likely candidates restricting the expansion of effective leadership additional restrictive
factors might shape this situation. Time, money, and access to quality education and
mentorship all fall within the resource limitations police agencies might confront,
particularly given the small scale of most American police agencies (Hickman and
Reaves, 2006). In addition, organizations may also experience barriers to effective
leadership in the form of organization and workforce culture, employee attitudes trust,
tradition, and leadership failures (see Newton, 2002). Perceived barriers limiting the
expansion of effective leadership practices represent another area that has garnered
limited empirical inquiry, particularly among policing scholars.
Research questions
This study seeks to address several questions related with leadership traits,
assessment, and development, as well as the barriers to the expansion of effective
leaders and leadership. These questions are asked in the context of policing and
answers are based on the experiences and perceptions of mid-career supervisors. First,
what are the dominant traits and habits perceived to be associated with effective and
ineffective leadership? Second, what indicates serve as the best evidence to assess a
leaders efficacy? Third, what common approaches contribute to the development of

leadership skills? Finally, what barriers prevent the expansion of more effective
leadership practices? Salient policy implications are also addressed.
Methodology
The study considers the characteristics, assessment, and development of effective
police leaders and leadership using a consensus approach. Findings are based on
surveys completed by police supervisors attending the FBI National Academy (NA) in
Quantico, Virginia. The NA is a career development experience targeting upwardly
mobile police supervisors in the mid- to later-stages of their career. The ten-week
residential experience is analogous to a supervisor taking a sabbatical from their job to
attend college for a quarter. NA participants enroll in a schedule of classes taught by
FBI personnel, earning credit through the University of Virginia. The FBI allocates a
seat to a particular agency, which ultimately identifies the officer who will fill that seat
and attend the program. NA seats are supposed to be assigned to officers who are of
significant importance to their agency and who are likely to play a future leadership
role in that agency or some other law enforcement setting. That ideal is generally
brought to life, though favoritism and nepotism likely influence how some agencies
assign this opportunity. NA participants are almost exclusively in supervisory
position and agencies are supposed to attest participants will remain employed for at
least three years upon returning to their agency. The NA operates four ten-week
sessions each year. During sessions 232 through 235 (calendar year 2008) surveys were
administered to NA attendees on the first day of each session. Participation was
voluntary; officers were provided written informed consent details and signed a waiver
if they assented to participate. Respondents did not report any personal identifies and
disclosed only limited experiential data.
The survey items were derived from an earlier project also conducted in the NA
(Schafer, 2009) in which participants completed open-ended survey questions
concerning the traits and habits of effective leaders and additional aspects of the
leadership process in policing. Those open-ended results were systematically reviewed
and coded to identify dominant themes (see Lee, 1999; Strauss, 1987). This process
yielded 10-12 common responses provided in narrative characterizations of dimensions
of police leadership (traits and habits of effective leaders, traits and habits of ineffective
leaders, metrics to assess leadership efficacy, and barrier to the expansion of effective
leadership in policing). Rather than being asked to provide qualitative descriptions of
these key dimensions, officers in sessions 232 through 235 were asked to review the
lists of dominant themes and identify (in ranked order) the five most important
elements (i.e. to rank the 1st through 5th trait or habit that contribute to leadership
efficacy)[5]. This process advances beyond general descriptions of leadership
dimensions by seeking to determine which elements are most salient along each
dimension of leadership. Rather than describing the traits and habits of effective
leaders, the results reported in this analysis rank the traits and habits identified as
being most important to leadership efficacy based on a consensus approach. In
addition, using a Likert-based response set participants were asked to assess the utility
of common methods to that might be used to develop leaders. The list of included items
represented a cross-section of the common educational, training, and mentoring tools
advocated in both general (Bass, 1990; Bass and Riggio, 2006; Day and OConnor, 2003;

Effective
leadership in
policing
649

PIJPSM
33,4

650

Mumford and Manley, 2003) and police-specific (Anderson et al., 2006; IACP, n.d.)
leadership development literature.
Across the four sessions included in this project, 1,042 of the 1,071 (97.3 percent) NA
attendees completed all or part of the survey. Though the NA is not a random sample
of either police officers or police supervisors, as a convenience sample it is still of
interest and relevance in considering elements of police leadership. Because the
majority of participants are supervisors and are among the elite in their employee
agency, they represent a sample which has likely given considerable attention to
leadership and its development, both in their personal experiences and within the
context of their employing agency. Though based on a convenience sample the data
provide unique insight into a cross-section of American law enforcement with a
richness of diversity and experiences that would be difficult and expensive to obtain
through more systematic sampling approaches. While the data might render
questionable an explanatory analysis, descriptive consideration of themes and trends
remain viable.
Findings
The average project participants reported 19.3 years of police experience (range 0-43
years of service) and 9.7 years of supervisory experience (range 0-28 years)[6]. As such,
the respondents represent a sample with a robust history of general and supervisory
experiences in policing. The majority of respondents (91.4 percent) were American.
Nearly one-quarter (23.7 percent) reported having prior military service; of those, the
average duration was 7.1 years in the armed forces (range 0-36 years). The participants
reported a relatively high degree of education. Nearly all had some college education,
with two-thirds reporting completion at or beyond the bachelors level and nearly
one-quarter reporting a graduate or law degree (see Table I). The sample
under-represents municipal and other (i.e. special jurisdiction) agencies, while
over-representing state agencies (Hickman and Reaves, 2006)[7]. The sample also

Education
(n 958)

Agency type
(n 998)

Agency size
(n 999)
Table I.
Respondent education,
agency type and agency
size

High School/GED
Some college
Associates degree
Bachelors degree
Some graduate/law work
Graduate/law degree
Municipal/city
County
State
Federal
Other
0-50
51-100
101-250
251-1000
1001+

Frequency

Percentage

36
182
91
296
116
237
545
198
146
65
44
263
178
161
215
182

3.8
19.0
9.5
30.8
12.1
24.7
54.6
19.8
14.6
6.5
4.4
26.3
17.8
16.1
21.5
18.2

Notes: Frequencies do not sum to 1,042 due to missing cases. Valid percentages are reported

under-represents small agencies; nationally over 85 percent of agencies employ 50 or

fewer sworn officers. The later skew is likely a function of the difficulty smaller
agencies have releasing personnel for ten weeks to attend the NA. Smaller agencies do
not have the same capacity to back-fill a supervisors responsibilities for such a long
period of time, perhaps making it less likely they would petition the FBI for a place in
the NA.

Effective
leadership in
policing
651

Traits and habits of effective and ineffective leaders

Respondents were asked to consider 12 common traits and habits that might
characterize effective leaders. From this list, respondents ranked the top five
characteristics they believed contributed the most to a leader being effective.
Respondents repeated the same process for 12 characteristics be associated with
ineffective leaders. This process provides a greater understanding of the perceived
relative importance of the common themes in shaping a leaders efficacy or lack
thereof. Table II presents the rankings of the traits and habits associated with effective
leadership. For each of the 12 characteristics, the table reports the percentage of
respondents ranking that item as the first through fifth most important trait or habit.
The far right column in the table reports the percentage of respondents who included
the characteristic within their top five. For example, 37.5 percent of respondents ranked
honesty and integrity as the most important characteristics of an effective leader.
Another 11.1 percent ranked it as the second most important characteristic and overall
two-thirds (69.8 percent) of respondents included it within their top five. Though
honesty and integrity was clearly viewed as the most important characteristic in
leadership efficacy, less agreement is apparent in ranking the overall importance of the
other 11 characteristics. The items most frequently observed among the top five
characteristics appear more closely tied to personality and interpersonal skills (caring,
communication, work ethic) versus more technical aspects (i.e. decision making,
competency, and knowledge).
The rankings of ineffective leadership characteristics were dominated by three
main attributes: ineffective communication, neglecting the needs of workers, and
questionable ethics or integrity as reported in Table III. Other characteristics lagged
behind these elements in prevalence among the top five attributes. Ineffective

Honesty and integrity

Caring for needs of employees
Strong communication skills
Strong work ethic
Approachable and willing to listen
Taking responsibility
Making sound decisions
Fairness
Competence to perform duties
Flexibility and innovation
Knowledge of work environment
Ability to delegate

1st
(%)

2nd
(%)

3rd
(%)

4th
(%)

5th
(%)

% ranking
in top five

37.5
8.9
11.1
9.3
3.0
4.9
7.0
2.0
6.2
1.0
1.7
0.8

11.1
11.3
13.2
11.2
8.4
8.1
7.5
8.7
6.0
3.5
4.4
2.3

9.9
11.9
10.2
9.0
11.5
9.1
7.1
7.7
7.0
5.1
4.6
3.9

7.0
10.1
8.7
8.4
8.8
9.5
9.0
8.6
6.6
6.7
3.6
4.7

4.3
11.5
7.6
5.7
11.2
9.0
8.8
9.0
6.9
6.6
5.3
4.7

69.8
53.6
50.9
43.6
42.9
40.5
39.4
36.0
32.8
22.8
19.6
16.4

Table II.
Top five characteristics
contributing to police
leader efficacy

PIJPSM
33,4

652

Table III.
Top five characteristics
contributing to police
leader inefficacy

Ineffective communication
Neglects needs of workers
Questionable ethics and integrity
Poor work ethic
Inability to delegate
Failure to act
Unwillingness to change
Belief they know everything
Poor comprehension of job
Unwillingness to compromise
Inability to accept criticism
Lack of focus

1st
(%)

2nd
(%)

3rd
(%)

4th
(%)

5th
(%)

% ranking
in top five

15.8
8.5
32.5
5.9
3.5
5.2
2.4
7.0
7.4
2.3
1.8
0.9

15.1
15.5
10.4
8.3
7.3
5.7
4.8
7.0
7.9
4.5
4.4
2.3

13.8
15.9
7.0
7.5
8.2
7.9
8.1
6.5
6.2
6.3
6.6
2.9

10.1
10.0
6.1
7.3
9.0
8.8
9.2
7.1
5.6
6.6
6.9
3.7

9.5
12.2
5.9
6.6
7.6
7.5
9.3
5.8
5.7
7.8
7.2
3.4

64.3
62.1
62.0
35.6
35.5
35.1
33.8
33.4
32.7
27.5
26.9
13.2

leadership was generally the other side of the coin relative to effective leaders.
Paralleling the effective leadership list (Table II) the dominant elements are aligned
with a leaders personality and interpersonal relations with peers and subordinates
over technical competencies of supervision. The distinction between effective and
ineffective leaders seems more a function of how they do their job versus the
mechanical aspects of their performance. In other words, what appeared to matter most
in making a leader ineffective is not what they do (or fail do), but rather how they
perform their duties, their personal integrity, and their interpersonal relationships.
Assessing leadership efficacy
Respondents were asked to rank the five most important pieces of evidence (out of ten)
that might be used to assessing a leaders efficacy. Table IV provides the outcome of
that ranking process. The items ranked more highly in this processes were split
between what might be considered the technical and the interpersonal outcomes of
leadership. The majority of respondents included evidence of technical
accomplishments such as the leader achieving key goals (ranked in the top five by
72.1 percent of respondents and rated most important by 25.1 percent) and whether

Table IV.
Top five indicators to
assess leader efficacy

Achieves key tasks, goals, mission

Growth or development of subordinates
Subordinates have positive morale
Subordinates achieve desired goals
Positive standing within agency
Productivity of unit
Positive standing within community
Low complaints against subordinates
Operates within budget
Low complaints against leader

1st
(%)

2nd
(%)

3rd
(%)

4th
(%)

5th
(%)

% ranking
in top five

25.1
21.9
11.5
17.4
17.3
5.8
4.5
0.5
0.0
0.2

15.6
20.5
16.0
27.1
11.4
9.0
6.7
1.1
0.7
0.8

12.2
23.1
17.0
22.4
12.3
10.1
8.1
2.2
1.7
2.6

11.4
19.3
13.2
19.2
8.3
10.6
9.6
3.6
3.1
2.3

7.8
15.2
9.5
13.8
11.2
10.6
12.1
4.5
6.2
3.2

72.1
69.2
67.2
65.3
60.4
46.2
40.9
12.0
11.7
9.0

subordinates achieved their goals (ranked in the top five by 65.3 percent). At the same
time, primacy was also placed on items reflecting the interpersonal dynamics of the
workplace, including the growth and development of subordinates, positive
subordinate morale, and the leader having positive standing in the agency. Results
lend support for blended and holistic approaches to assessing and evaluating leader
efficacy within police organizations.
The development of effective leadership
Respondents evaluated whether common leadership development strategies were
likely to be helpful to someone participating in a police leadership development
program (Table V). In general respondents perceived some utility in all of the common
elements associated with police leadership development; for each strategy more than
three-quarters of respondents rated the approach as at least a little helpful. Training
and feedback were highly regarded approaches, with more than half of respondents
assessing those strategies as very helpful and nearly all respondents assessing them
as at least helpful. Feedback was highly ranked not only for current supervisors, but
also to support the development of officers who might eventually achieve supervisory
positions. Leadership experiences, education, mentoring, networking, and
incorporating leadership practices from other fields were well regarded, with at least
half of respondents rating these strategies as very helpful or helpful. The
remaining items (books, reports and journal articles) were rated as being less helpful,
though all were ranked a little helpful by around half of the respondents.

Effective
leadership in
policing
653

Perceived constraints on the expansion of effective leadership

Extant literature provided anecdotal or unattributed suggestions that police agencies
face a shortage of effective leadership and/or a dearth of effective leaders when they
make promotion decisions (Haberfeld, 2006; Rowe, 2006; Schafer, 2009). Respondents
ranked the top five constraints (from a list of 11 items) impeding the expansion of
effective leadership practices (Table VI). Surprisingly, respondents did not see budgets
or the lack of qualified personnel as the major restrictions on such an expansion.

Feedback to support officer development

Feedback to support supervisor
development
Training programs
Providing experience in leadership
Education programs
Mentor programs
Networking with leaders from other agencies
Leadership practices from other fields
Books & reports on leadership in policing
Books & reports on leadership in other fields
Academic journals & textbooks in policing
Academic journals & textbooks in other
fields

Very
helpful

Helpful

A little
helpful

Not at all
helpful

58.9

38.3

2.7

0.1

58.6
55.9
49.5
47.8
42.7
33.5
17.1
7.3
4.6
4.5

36.6
42.1
47.2
47.2
44.2
50.1
49.0
35.5
24.6
32.3

4.7
1.8
3.3
4.9
12.4
15.4
32.0
49.2
55.8
51.1

0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.9
1.7
8.0
15.0
12.1

2.6

21.2

55.0

21.2

Table V.
Assessment of common
leadership development
strategies

PIJPSM
33,4

654
Table VI.
Top five constraints on
the expansion of effective
leadership practices

Resistance to change
Politics
Inadequate leadership development system
Failure to provide true leadership
Standards & selection
Ego
Lack of qualified personnel
Lack funds for training
Absence of leadership development system
Influence of labor orgs
Lack of available training

1st
(%)

2nd
(%)

3rd
(%)

4th
(%)

5th
(%)

% ranking
in top five

18.3
10.7
10.1
12.0
5.9
8.2
7.8
7.6
5.8
1.8
1.8

16.3
9.6
13.3
9.8
8.6
8.4
6.4
7.2
6.5
2.8
1.6

12.9
11.7
9.6
8.5
9.3
7.6
7.3
7.5
6.8
4.2
4.0

11.7
10.1
6.7
8.1
10.9
6.2
7.0
5.4
4.4
3.4
2.5

8.8
7.3
7.5
6.4
6.9
8.0
6.8
5.7
4.5
4.2
2.7

68.0
49.3
47.1
44.8
41.7
38.5
35.2
33.2
28.1
16.5
12.6

Rather, the dominant constraints related with the culture (resistance to change, politics,
and failure to provide true leadership) and structures (ineffective leadership
development systems and inferior standards and selections) that dominate American
policing. This represents a mixed outcome for the expansion of effective leadership,
suggesting policing must do more than modify resource streams and protocols; the
profession must also overcome perceived resistance, the existing absence of leadership,
and ego.
Discussion
The development of effective leaders and leadership practices are persistent problems
in policing. Though examples abound describing departments and supervisors that
excel in this regard, various anecdotal evidence reported in this study and by other
scholars suggest circumstances might still be improved. Understanding the
characteristics of effective and ineffective leaders serves as an important starting
point in the process; these two groupings help define the end state developmental
efforts need to pursue. The highly ranked characteristics on both lists tend to mirror
one another, as perhaps should be expected. It is understandable that ineffective
leaders were characterized as suffering from questionable ethics and integrity,
particularly given the primacy placed on those attributes in the ratings of effective
leaders. Effective leaders had strong character, cared for their employees, worked hard,
and were successful communicators. Ineffective leaders had questionable character,
neglected the needs of workers, displayed a poor work ethic, and failed to
communicate. These lists validate much of the extant literature on effective and
ineffective leaders, both within (Engel, 2001, 2002) and outside (Bass, 1990; Burns,
2003; Collins, 2001; Kellerman, 2004a; Kouzes and Posner, 2002; Lord et al., 1986;
Maxwell, 2005) of policing contexts. This validation is important because unlike most
prior research it is derived from a diverse convenience sample of officers representing a
broad cross section of police organizations. Where prior studies have largely been
restricted to no more than a handful of agencies, these data are derived from
supervisors who work in agencies that vary in size, jurisdiction, and mandate. This
validation lends further credence to the belief that effective police leadership is about
character, communication, compassion, and work ethic.

In considering the results it might be concluded that developing more effective

leaders could be achieved by working to convert the dominant elements such as poor
ethics, poor communication, and lack of compassion for employees, from strengths into
weaknesses (Table III). The duality of the highly ranked characteristics in Tables II-III
might suggest that converting a handful of characteristics from weaknesses into
strengths would enhance the efficacy of a leader or potential leader. This strategy
assumes that such transformation are possible, though there is evidence suggesting
many of the highly rated characteristics of effective leaders might not be as amenable
to leadership development efforts. Developmental programs can endeavor to improve
communication skills and provide the technical knowledge that is partially related to
making sound decisions and performing duties in a competent manner. More
challenging, however, might be enhancing integrity, caring, work ethic, fairness, and
flexibility. Leadership development efforts can enterprise to enhance awareness of the
importance of these issues. It is less clear, whether those characteristics (which seem
closely tied to personality) are easily developed in a given direction. The mutability or
permanence of personality remains a widely debated matter within psychology
research (see Costa and McCrae, 1994, 2006; Roberts and Mroczek, 2008; Srivastava
et al., 2003) and there is disagreement whether such changes can be achieved outside of
clinical treatment (Piedmont, 2001).
These results create a curious situation in the context of policing. Systematic data is
not readily available on how agencies evaluate candidates and train, educate, or mentor
new supervisors. Through informal discussions with NA participants, as well as
anecdotal accounts (e.g. any number of articles printed in the FBI Law Enforcement
Bulletin, Police Chief, and other professional publications), a tentative understanding of
leadership selection and development can be derived. It is common for agencies to base
promotional assessments on past performance evaluations (which might be heavily
oriented toward task performance and technical competence) and tests of procedural
knowledge (i.e. mastery of policies and procedures). Some agencies may also include an
assessment of leadership and decision making skills in mock situations (i.e. inbox
exercises). Developmental initiatives for new (or prospective) supervisors also tend to
have a slant toward technical and task-specific information. New supervisors are
taught the tasks and procedures associated with their job with far less, if any, attention
given to the interpersonal dynamics that might be associated with being an effective
leader. In other words, the anecdotal evidence would suggest the prevailing practices in
American policing focus on ensuring supervisors have procedural competency, but
police supervisors participating in this project perceived that behavioral aspects of
leadership were more important in shaping (in)efficacy.
In discussing leadership development the respondents seemed to be advocating for
modifying conventional pre-service police training models. It is common for agencies to
use a mixture of classroom learning, practical exercises, and guided applications when
developing new employees through pre-service and field training. The rookie officer is
exposed to a set of classroom knowledge and professional lore, practices rudimentary
applications of that knowledge in controlled scenarios, and then works with
experienced officers to further develop their skills in the real world while being
monitored, critiqued, and mentored by seasoned veterans. Results reported in Table V
portray an analogous vision of police leadership development. Prospective leaders
would be given a foundation of classroom training and education, would be given the

Effective
leadership in
policing
655

PIJPSM
33,4

656

chance to practice their leadership skills, and would be given feedback to enhance
application of knowledge and skills. Such an approach would certainly require the
investment of resources and effort on the part of an agency, but informal discussions
with NA participants suggest it is an informal practice in many agencies and by many
current leaders. In other words, though an agency might not offer a formal leadership
development program, a good leader (recognizing the need to develop the leaders of
tomorrow) will encourage front-line personnel to read and attend elective leadership
training. Where possible, that leader might also allow officers to take charge of critical
incidents, investigations, or administrative matters to provide leadership experience.
Whether a more systematized model would yield favorable outcomes remains
unresolved in current policing scholarship.
In considering the barriers to the expansion of effective leaders and leadership it is
perhaps unsurprising the list of factors tends to mirror common barriers to change in
policing (see Guyot, 1991; OHara, 2005; Sherman et al., 1973). Though budgetary
limitations are often presumed to be a key barrier to expansion and development
efforts, many other obstacles received higher rankings from respondents. The barriers
respondents identified characterized the major barriers as being cultural (resistance to
change and politics) and structural (the absence of effective leadership development
systems). In addition, respondents expressed the development of leadership was
impeded by the current absence of leadership. Presumably, to see a need to change
current practices requires a leader and leadership initiative; if those in control of an
agency do not have the vision and will to modify leadership development approaches,
such modifications are unlikely to materialize. The trailing significance of fiscal
resources represents a challenge for efforts to enhance leadership within the policing
profession. If money were the key limitation, external initiatives could overcome that
barrier. Culture, politics, structure, and inertia might be more difficult to overcome.
It must be conceded that these study findings are based on a convenience sample of
police leaders. Though the sample is rich and diverse in representing agencies of
differing sizes, jurisdictions, and missions, the generalizability of the findings is
unclear. Respondents were supervisors and, for the most part, were supposed to be key
or up-and-coming actors in their agency; the experiences and perspectives of front-line
personnel might differ. In addition, the characteristics of effective and ineffective
leaders are based on a consensus model of perceptions, rather than an objective
evaluation of how traits might translate into specific outcomes. The present research
does not attempt to empirically link the extent to which leaders reflect those
characteristics and their subsequent leadership outcomes. What the data do capture
are experiences and perceptions, but not a systematic evaluation of any particular trait,
habit, obstacle, or leadership development tool. Nonetheless, the data offer guidance for
subsequent research efforts that might seek to systematically study these aspects of
leadership using more representative samples.
Implications
Findings from this study present key implications for both police practitioners and
scholars. From the standpoint of practitioners there are several challenges associated
with developing and expanding effective leadership. First, though the use of training
programs is often the immediate response to any policing problem, valid arguments
can be constructed to be skeptical that such training will yield desired outcomes (see

Buerger, 1998). Though respondents seemed to support a multi-dimensional approach

to leadership development, it is unclear whether such efforts will be any more fruitful
than traditional police training. Second, multi-dimensional approaches that mirror a
field training model might provide a more robust experience, but it is unclear whether
such a model can be executed in a manner that is both cost effective and ensures
requisite consistency and continuity in the experiences of participants. Third, that
money trails other considerations as a barrier to expanding effective leaders and
leadership is a significant obstacle for the policing profession. Expanding quality
leadership will require more than an infusion of funds through either a national effort
(i.e. a program mirroring LEEA, LEEP, or COPS) or a targeted intervention (i.e. as a
result of a consent decree). When the greatest barriers include resistance to change,
politics, and lack of leadership, the profession is not confronted with a chicken-and-egg
debate; rather, it is confronted with a situation where both (current leaders and
prospects for developing future leaders) are absent.
For scholars of leadership and/or policing, much work remains to be done to better
understand the role of leadership and its development within contemporary policing.
Though recognizing the value of leadership is relatively simply, its exact role in
shaping policing outcomes remains more presumed than proven. Though traits and
habits of effective and ineffective leaders can be identified, their relative significance
and magnitude have not been conclusively evaluated. Ideas abound for how leaders
can be developed and how the skills of current leaders can be enhanced. How to
accomplish those outcomes, including whether they require separate approaches, is an
open empirical question. And if such development efforts are pursued on a large scale,
they must be assessed with a consideration of the cultural, structural, and other
barriers within which initiatives are implemented. Despite important findings from
this and other recent studies, the area of police leadership remains ripe for further
empirical inquiry.
Notes
1. Engel (2001, pp. 341-344) provides a helpful review of how public sector theories and
concepts have been applied to policing samples and contexts.
2. The variation seen across studies may partially be produced by the variation a supervisors
style might exhibit across contexts, audiences, and time. Studies have often tended to
compartmentalize supervisors into a single leadership style, overlooking the actual style a
leader employs might vary based on perceived situation exigencies (Brehm and Gates, 1993;
Brewer et al., 1994; Densten, 2003; Hersey et al., 2008; Kuykendall, 1977; Kuykendall and
Unsinger, 1982).
3. The IACP program was derived from materials developed by retired Brigadier General
Howard Prince II for use at the United States Military Academy at West Point, NY. Through
consultation with officers from across the country, these base materials were modified into a
700 page volume and a variety of state and local training initiatives.
4. Informative summaries of positive, negative, neutral, and missing research evidence on a
range of leadership development efforts may be found in the writings of Bass (1990,
pp. 807-856) as well as Ruderman et al. (1990).
5. In each case, respondents were able to also identify and rank up to five other elements in
the event the existing response options did not reflect their beliefs and experiences. This was
done to allow for the possibility of error in creating thematic lists. The other option was

Effective
leadership in
policing
657

PIJPSM
33,4

658

rarely selected, accounting for approximately 0.5 percent of the provided ratings. No
consistent patterns of responses emerged and the other responses are omitted from
consideration here due to their low prevalence and diverse nature.
6. Though the National Academy was designed for sworn police supervisors, in a small
proportion of cases admission was granted to non-sworn supervisory personnel,
non-supervisory personnel, or recently promoted personnel. In such cases, participants
might report zero years of policing experience and/or zero years of supervisory experience.
Such cases account for 20 of the 1,042 respondents (1.9 percent).
7. The Bureau of Justice Statistics classifications only place state police agencies within the
state agency category; state-level investigative entities are not included in this
classification. It is possible those working for the latter (i.e. state narcotics bureaus)
self-identified as a state agency rather than as a special jurisdiction agency. Thus, the skew
may be a function of differing classifications rather than an actual difference in
representativeness.
References
Adlam, R. (2002), Governmental rationalities in police leadership: an essay exploring some of
the deep structure in police leadership praxis, Policing & Society, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 15-36.
Adlam, R. and Villiers, P. (Eds) (2003), Police Leadership in the Twenty-first Century: Philosophy,
Doctrine and Developments, Waterside Press, Winchester.
Allen, D. (1982), Police supervision on the street: an analysis of supervisor/officer interaction
during the shift, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 91-109.
Allen, D. and Maxfield, M. (1983), Judging police performance: views and behavior of patrol
officers, in Bennett, R. (Ed.), Police at Work: Policy Issues and Analysis, Sage, Beverly
Hills, CA, pp. 65-86.
Anderson, T.D., Gisborne, K. and Holliday, P. (2006), Every Officer is a Leader, 2nd ed., Trafford
Publishing, Victoria, BC.
Bailey, F.G. (1988), Humbuggery and Manipulation: The Art of Leadership, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY.
Baker, T.E. (2000), Effective Police Leadership, Looseleaf Law Publications, Flushing, NY.
Barras, J.R. (1998), The Last of the Black Emperors: The Hollow Comeback of Marion Barry in the
New Age of Black Leaders, Bancroft Press, Baltimore, MD.
Bass, B.M. (1990), Bass & Stogdills Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial
Applications, 3rd ed., The Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Bittner, E. (1983), Legitimacy and workmanship: introduction to control in the police
organization, in Punch, M. (Ed.), Control in the Police Organization, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 1-11.
Brehm, J. and Gates, S. (1993), Donut shops and speed traps: evaluating models of supervision
on police behavior, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 555-81.
Brewer, N. (1995), Leadership and supervision, in Brewer, N. and Wilson, C. (Eds), Psychology
and Policing, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 291-316.
Brown, M.K. (1988), Working the Street: Police Discretion and the Dilemmas of Reform, Russell
Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

Buerger, M.E. (1998), Police training as a Pentecost: using tools singularly ill-suited to the
purpose of reform, Police Quarterly, Vol. 1, pp. 27-63.
Burns, J.M. (2003), Transforming Leadership, Grove Press, New York, NY.
Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds) (1990), Measures of Leadership, Center for Creative Leadership,
Greensboro, NC.
Clements, C. and Washbush, J.B. (1999), The two faces of leadership: considering the dark side
of leader-follower dynamics, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 170-5.
Cohen, B. (1980), Leadership styles of commanders in the New York City Police Department,
Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 125-38.
Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great, Collins, New York, NY.
Collins, J. (2005), Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Jim Collins, Boulder, CO.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1994), Set like plaster: evidence for the stability of adult
personality, in Heatherton, T.F. and Weinberger, J.L. (Eds), Can Personality Change?,
American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 21-40.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (2006), Age changes in personality and their origins: comments
on Roberts, Walton, and Viechtbauer, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 26-8.
Day, D.V. and OConnor, P.M.G (2003), Leadership development: understanding the process,
in Murphy, S.E. and Riggio, R.E. (Eds), The Future of Leadership Development, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 11-28.
Densten, I.L. (2003), Senior police leadership: does rank matter?, Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 400-18.
Dias, C.F. and Vaughn, M.S. (2006), Bureaucracy, managerial disorganization, and
administrative breakdown in criminal justice agencies, Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 543-55.
Domonoske, C. (2006), Toward an integrated theory of police management, International
Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 326-41.
Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. and Skogstad, A. (2007), Destructive leadership behavior: a definition
and conceptual model, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 207-16.
Engel, R.S. (2000), The effects of supervisory styles on patrol officer behavior, Police Quarterly,
Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 262-93.
Engel, R.S. (2001), Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants, Journal of Criminal
Justice, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 341-55.
Engel, R.S. (2002), Patrol officer supervision in the community policing era, Journal of Criminal
Justice, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 51-64.
Engel, R.S. and Worden, R.E. (2003), Police officers attitudes, behavior, and supervisory
influences: an analysis of problem solving, Criminology, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 131-66.
Finkelstein, S. (2003), Why Smart Executives Fail: And What You Can Learn from Their
Mistakes, Penguin Group, New York, NY.
Gardner, J.W. (1990), On Leadership, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Garrett, T.M. (1999), The Waco, Texas, ATF raid and Challenger launch decision: management,
judgment, and the knowledge analytic, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 31
No. 1, pp. 66-86.
Guyot, D. (1991), Policing As Though People Matter, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.
Haberfeld, M.R. (2006), Police Leadership, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Effective
leadership in
policing
659

PIJPSM
33,4

Hall, P. (1980), Great Planning Disasters, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.

Hickman, M.J. and Reaves, B.A. (2006), Local Police Departments, 2003, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, Washington, DC.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. and Johnson, D.E. (2008), Management of Organizational Behavior:
Leading Human Resources, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

660

Hoover, L.T. and Mader, E.T. (1990), Attitudes of police chiefs toward private sector
management principles, American Journal of Police, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 25-37.
House, R.J. and Aditya, R.N. (1997), The social scientific study of leadership: quo vadis?,
Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 409-73.
House, R.J. and Podsakoff, P.M. (1994), Leadership effectiveness: past perspectives and future
directions for research, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the
Science, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 45-82.
Howard, A. (2007), Best practices in leader selection, in Conger, J.A. and Riggio, R.E. (Eds),
The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next Generation of Leaders, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA, pp. 11-40.
Huberts, L.W.J.C., Kaptein, M. and Lasthuizen, K. (2007), A study of the impact of three
leadership styles on integrity violations committed by police officers, Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 587-607.
International Association of Chiefs of Police (n.d.), Leadership in Police Organizations, McGraw
Hill, Boston, MA.
Jermier, J.M. and Berkes, L.J. (1979), Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: a closer
look at the quasi-military model, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Kellerman, B. (2000), Hitlers ghost: a manifesto, in Kellerman, B. and Matusak, L.R. (Eds),
Cutting Edge: Leadership 2000, Center for the Advanced Study of Leadership, College
Park, MD, pp. 65-8.
Kellerman, B. (2004a), Bad Leadership: What It Is, How It Happens, Why It Matters, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Kellerman, B. (2004b), Leadership: warts and all, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82 No. 1,
pp. 40-5.
Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1993), Leaders, Fools and Imposters: Essays on the Psychology of
Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Kirkpatrick, S.A. and Locke, E.A. (1991), Leadership: do traits matter?, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 48-60.
Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2002), The Leadership Challenge, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
Kuykendall, J.L. (1977), Police leadership: an analysis of executive styles, Criminal Justice
Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 89-100.
Kuykendall, J.L. and Unsinger, P.C. (1982), The leadership styles of police managers, Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 311-21.
Lee, T.W. (1999), Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Lipsky, M. (1980), Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service, Russell
Sage Foundation, New York, NY.

London, M., Smither, J.W. and Diamante, T. (2007), Best practices in leadership assessment,
in Conger, J.A. and Riggio, R.E. (Eds), The Practice of Leadership: Developing the Next
Generation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 41-63.
Lord, R.G., De Vader, C.L. and Alliger, G.M. (1986), A meta-analysis of the relation between
personality traits and leadership: an application of validity generalization procedures,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 402-10.
Lundman, R. (1979), Organizational norms and police discretion: an observational study of
police work with traffic law violators, Criminology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 159-71.
McCabe, B. (2005), The disabling shadow of leadership, British Journal of Administrative
Management, Vol. 46, pp. 16-17.
McCall, M.W. Jr and Lombardo, M.M. (1983), Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives
Get Derailed, Center for Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.
McCauley, C.D. (2004), Successful and unsuccessful leadership, in Antonakis, J., Cianciolo, A.T.
and Sternberg, R.J. (Eds), The Nature of Leadership, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 199-221.
Manning, P.K. (1997), Police Work, 2nd ed., Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL.
Mastrofski, S.M., Ritti, R.R. and Snipes, J.B. (1994), Expectancy theory and police productivity in
DUI enforcement, Law and Society Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 113-48.
Maxwell, J.C. (2005), The 3608 Leader: Developing Your Influence from Anywhere in the
Organization, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.
Meese, E. and Ortmeier, P.J. (2004), Leadership, Ethics, and Policing: Challenges for the
21st Century, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Miller, H.A., Watkins, R.J. and Webb, D. (2009), The use of psychological testing to evaluate law
enforcement leadership competencies and development, Police Practice and Research,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Muir, W.K. Jr (1977), Police: Street Corner Politicians, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Mumford, M.D. and Manley, G.G. (2003), Putting the development in leadership development:
implications for theory and practice, in Murphy, S.E. and Riggio, R.E. (Eds), The Future
of Leadership Development, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 237-61.
Newton, J. (2002), Barriers to effective quality management and leadership: case study of two
academic departments, Higher Education, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 185-212.
OHara, P. (2005), Why Law Enforcement Organizations Fail, Carolina Academic Press, Durham,
NC.
Piedmont, R.L. (2001), Cracking the plaster cast: big five personality change during intensive
outpatient counseling, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 500-20.
Pursley, R.D. (1974), Leadership and community identification attitudes among two categories
of police chiefs: an exploratory inquiry, Journal of Police Science and Administration,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 414-22.
Reiss, A.J. Jr (1971), The Police and the Public, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Reuss-Ianni, E. (1983), Two Cultures of Policing: Street Cops and Management Cops, Transaction
Books, New York, NY.
Roberts, B.W. and Mroczek, D. (2008), Personality trait change in adulthood, Current Directions
in Psychological Science, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 31-5.

Effective
leadership in
policing
661

PIJPSM
33,4

662

Rowe, M. (2006), Following the leader: front-line narratives on police leadership, Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 757-67.
Ruderman, M.N., Ohlott, P.J. and McCauley, C.D. (1990), Assessing opportunities for leadership
development, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership
Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 547-62.
Schackleton, W. (1995), Business Leadership, Routledge, London.
Schafer, J.A. (2009), Developing effective leadership in policing: perils, pitfalls, and paths
forward, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 238-60.
Sherman, L.W., Milton, C.H. and Kelly, T.V. (1973), Team Policing: Seven Case Studies, Police
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Smith, D. (1984), The organizational context of legal control, Criminology, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 19-38.
Srivastava, S., John, O.P., Gosling, S.D. and Potter, J. (2003), Development of personality in early
and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent to change?, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 1041-53.
Stanton, M. (2003), The Prince of Providence: The Life and Times of Buddy Cianci, Americas
Most Notorious Mayor, Some Wiseguys, and the Feds, Random House, New York, NY.
Steinheider, B. and Wuestewald, T. (2008), From the bottom-up: sharing leadership in a police
agency, Police Practice and Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 145-63.
Strauss, A.L. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY.
Sutherland, M.D. and Reuss-Ianni, E. (1992), Leadership and management, in Cordner, G.W.
and Hale, D.C. (Eds), What Works in Policing? Operations and Administration Examined,
Anderson, Cincinnati, OH, pp. 157-77.
Swartz, M. and Watkins, S. (2003), Power Failure: The Inside Story of the Collapse of ENRON,
Doubleday, New York, NY.
Tannenbaum, R. and Schmidt, W.H. (1958), How to choose a leadership pattern, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 95-101.
Trojanowicz, R.C. (1980), The Environment of the First-line Police Supervisor, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Van Maanen, J. (1983), The boss: first-line supervision in an American police agency,
in Punch, M. (Ed.), Control in the Police Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 275-317.
Van Maanen, J. (1984), Making rank: becoming an American police sergeant, Urban Life, Vol. 13
No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Wilson, J.Q. (1968), Varieties of Police Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Witte, J.H., Travis, L.F. and Langworthy, R.H. (1990), Participatory management in law
enforcement: police officer, supervisor and administrator perceptions, American Journal
of Police, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 1-23.
Zhao, J., Lovrich, N.P. and Gray, K. (1995), Moving toward community policing: the role of
postmaterialist values in a changing police profession, American Journal of Police, Vol. 14
Nos 3/4, pp. 151-72.

Further reading
Kelloway, E.K., Sivanathan, N., Francis, L. and Barling, J. (2005), Poor leadership, in Barling, J.,
Kelloway, E.K. and Frone, M.R. (Eds), Handbook of Work Stress, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
CA, pp. 89-112.
Mastrofski, S.D. (1998), Community policing and police organizational structure,
in Brodeur, J. (Ed.), How to Recognize Good Policing: Problems and Issues, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 161-89.
National Research Council, CLAJ and DBASSE (2004), Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing:
The Evidence, edited by Skogan, W. and Frydl, K., The National Academies Press,
Washington, DC.
About the author
Joseph A. Schafer is Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director in the Department of
Criminology & Criminal Justice at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. His research focuses
on policing, organizational change, leadership, communities and crime, citizen perceptions of
police, and futures research in policing. Joseph A. Schafer can be contacted at: jschafer@siu.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Effective
leadership in
policing
663

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.