Over the last year, the actions and acts of police forces across the country have been the focus of public, mass media and government scrutiny. Unfortunately, that attention has not been very positive. Indeed, most of the attention have resulted in citizens and officials both calling into question the credibility and integrity of police, particularly in relation to police interaction with minority groups. One of the explanations that people are saying has led to the current circumstances with police forces is that there is a lack of supervision, leadership and management of police officers on the street. While the legitimacy of that argument can be debated, one factor is true, namely the importance of supervision, management, and leadership in the daily direction of police officers. To be sure, from the police chief to the sergeant to the senior patrol officer, all play a role in making sure their subordinates do their jobs effectively and complying with their responsibilities. But what does it mean to supervise, manage, and lead in the context of law enforcement.
Managing refers to the “process of using resources to achieved organizational goals” (Hess & Orthmann, 2012, p. 5). In terms of law enforcement, management means direct police personnel to achieve the objective of the police department; which in most cases is to protect the community from criminal elements and serve the community by ensuring a safe and secure environment in which to live and do business in. Police management includes but is not limited to: deciding what crimes, criminals, or areas under their jurisdiction to focus on; making sure enough officer are available to patrol the streets; and confirming that the officers on the streets are properly equipped and trained to handle any necessary situations they encounter. Supervising refers to the process of “making sure the activities are effectively implemented by those responsible for doing so” (Hess & Orthmann, 2012, p. 5). In law enforcement, if the goal is to reduce criminal activity in a particular location, supervision would mean getting specific police personnel to patrol the area and arrest criminals in the area. Moreover, supervision does not end with the assignment of a task but following up with officer to make sure that they are doing what is expected of them effectively as well as understand what the situation is “on the ground” in case changes need to be made. In short, management is strategic, while supervision is tactical.
While anyone can be a manager, not everyone can or will be a great manager. Great managers often exhibit a number of common personality characteristics, namely self-confidence, a positive attitude, and consistency (Hess & Orthmann, 2012, p. 8). Self-confidence refers to not letting the negative aspects of a situation adversely affect your goals. In terms of policing, this might present itself in a confrontation moment were a manager is getting negative feedback from officers about a community policing campaign in an angry community. If the manager is confident that it will eventually lead to better police-community cooperation and interaction, then he should stick to the campaign explaining as much as needed to his officers and the community the purposes and the goals of the campaign. A positive attitude refers to the belief that no matter the obstacle or barrier, success will eventually be achieved within reason. As applied to policing, a positive attitude in a manager might manifest itself in his determination to see that a high crime rate is reversed. While in the beginning, there may seem many barriers to the accomplishment of this goal such as lack of officers, an untrusting local community, and criminal elements that can exploit the circumstances; a positive attitude might allow the manager to find avenues of assistance that he may not normally have considered such as making use of community/neighborhood watches to provide “in-community” support, or Department of Justice grants that might provide funding for crime mapping technology that could allow his officers to do more work with less staff. In short, a positive attitude allows managers the flexibility to “think-outside-the-box”. Lastly, consistency refers to the ability to try again after either achieving success or suffering defeat. Consistency is applicable in policing by forcing management to always be looking for ways to improve and upgrade and make their officers and policing better and better.
Just managing and supervision are intimately connected; so is managing and leading. Leading refers to setting goals and getting people to work towards accomplishing those goals. Managing, as mentioned above focuses more in making sure that the many tasks that need to take place in order for a goal to be accomplished, actually take place. Accordingly, managing is a part of leadership, or to put it more simply, a good manger is a good leader but they do not necessarily have to be the same person (Hess & Orthmann, 2012, p. 12). In fact, sometime it is more effective to have one good leader and one goo manager. In policing a good leader might be a chief of police who sets overall goals, inspires people, takes responsibility when things go wrong but gives praise when things go right. A good police manager, on the other hand, might be an assistant chief of police who formulate a plan to accomplish the chief’s goals, assign captains, sergeants and detectives to make sure those goals are carried out, and who will supervise efforts of officers to confirm that police activities are following the plan. Whether things go wrong or right, it is most likely connected to the assistant’s actions even though they may not be blamed or praised.
There are as many leadership styles as there are leaders, however, some styles can be broadly grouped together. Two of the more common leadership styles are autocratic and democratic (Hess & Orthmann, 2012, pp. 18-21). An autocratic leadership style is one in which the leader or manager unilaterally makes decision with little or no participation of other members of his staff. Moreover, autocrats rarely take into consideration the effects that their decision-making will have of their staff or employees. Oftentimes, these types of leaders have a “my way or the highway” attitude by which subordinates either have to obey or leave the organization. Conversely, a democratic leadership style is one where the leader actively seeks input from all relevant parties before a final decision will be made. While a democratic leader may not take into consideration everyone’s input, he will try to get as most input as possible. Whereas a staff in an autocratic leadership might be prohibited from acting without authority, in a democratic leadership, subordinates are encourage to be as innovated and creative as allowable within the framework of overall policy goals.
With all the talk of leaders, managers and supervisors, their naturally must be some sort of hierarchy of authority in a police department. In fact, all police departments have a chain of command by which direction is controlled (Hess & Orthman, 2012, pp. 36-40.) Generally, the greatest authority is held by the highest officer, which in most cases is the chief of police. Under the chief, is senior management which might consist of assistant chiefs or departmental captains. Under senior management is, of course, middle management who consists of sergeants and senior detectives. Lastly, there are the detectives, street officers, and patrol officers who are the front-line forces. Communications generally flow downward from one level to the next; although upper communication is also essential in overall management. Moreover, each level has management, supervisor and leadership responsibilities for the level below it.
References
Hess, K., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Management and supervision in law enforcement, 6th ed. Clifton Park, NY: Delmar Cengage.
