Understanding Of Ethical Leadership - Case Study Example

Ethical Leadership Student’s name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code: Date of Submission: Ethical Leadership Case study 1 In police supervision and leadership, the individual in charge should be concerned with four factors; the leader, the follower, communication and the situation (Baker, 2000; Hollander, 1992). A group of police officers requires a different style of leadership compared to another. In reality, different style of leadership may be applied on a specific situation. This means that a leader can apply several leadership styles from situation to situation. Therefore, leadership style is not necessarily determined by personality but rather by the prevailing situation. As Baker (2000) puts it “a general understanding of human nature and clear understanding of one’s subordinates are necessary for successful leadership.” Further, leaders should have clear and undisguised understanding of their abilities, informational requirements as well as performance needs. This influences the amount of guidance and direction a leader gives, the amount of socio-emotional support he/she provides and the extent of readiness that followers exhibit in performing a task. Followers are identified as vital in task execution since they can accept or reject the leader’s direction and also determines the power of a leader. In execution of a leadership role, Baker (2000) explains that there is no single best way to influence people. The most effective leadership style is determined by the relationship behavior and willingness of the followers to follow leadership orders. Leaders make their roles easier to handle through relational foundation they build between them and those they lead; their mode of communication, are they good listeners and do they facilitate tasks’ execution (spelling out duties and responsibilities as well as what, how, when, where and who is to do what)? In this regard Baker (2000) narrows leadership styles to four; if a leader has above average amounts of task behavior and below average amounts of relationship behavior he/she is said to be employing style 1. If a leader has above average amounts of task and relationship behavior (style 2), if he/she has above average amounts of relationship behavior and below average amounts of task behavior (style 3) while if a leader has below average amounts of relationship and task behavior he is said to be employing style 4. This presents a simplification of leadership in policing activities that can help identify and discuss the leadership deployed in case study 1. In case study 1, the leadership style employed by the ‘partner’ is style 2 that is there was above average amounts of task and relationship behavior. At the instance when an informant reported that a female was seen falling off the Anzac Bridge an investigation was conducted by the ‘partner’ and the other officer as they were directed by the informant. This is an indicator of good relationship behavior where the two police officers were together involved in the investigation as they were directed to where the female had landed, behind a fence which was below the bridge. This relationship behavior between the two officers laid the foundation for the case under preview in that there was cooperation that aided them to ascertain the details together. Therefore, from the onset the two officers (leader and follower) had good rapport in handling the Anzac Bridge case. When the two partners’ officers arrived at the scene of the incident the leader informed the follower to quickly climb over the fence to ascertain the situation of the female who had fallen off the bridge. In asking the follower officer to climb over the fence the communication between the leader and the follower can be easily decoded to what the leader told the follower “quickly climb over the fence as I give the situation report.” This depicts clear task and relationship behavior. The leader spells out the duty of the follower officer as in what to do (checking the female situation), how to do it (climb over the fence), when to do it (at the very instance the female was located following the direction of the informant), and who is to do it (the partner; the follower officer). As the follower officer climbed over the fence and established the situation of the female who had fallen, he communicates the same to the leader officer and in return the return makes a situation report over the radio. The relationship between the two officers in this situation is clearly cordial. As Baker (2000) explains “the extent to which leaders effectively communicate that is how leaders listen, facilitate and support certain behaviors” is the indication of relationship between a leader and follower. The communication between the two officers is good where the lead officer listens what she is told by the follower officer. The communication and listening capacity of the leader in this situation clearly represents the relationship between the two officers. Additionally, when the ambulance arrived, the leader officer who in this case is referred to as ‘my partner’ asks the follower officer to stay with them while she set up a crime scene. This was again is a task behavior depicted by the lead officer, directing the follower to remain at the scene of the incident to set up a crime scene. The lead officer does not ask the follower officer to set up the crime scene instead she does it. She clearly depicts her task (who is to do it). The follower officer continues to handle his following role as the ambulance officers directs him to help in holding the fluid bags and also bracing the female legs and arms. In view of the incidences from the time the two officers were informed about the incident to this juncture of setting up the crime scene it is clear that the leadership style 2 was in play. The task and relationship behavior was quite above average as per Baker (2000) explanations. In the second part of case study 1 when the duty officer arrives and a quick debrief was given to him, leadership style 4 was employed. The quick debrief upon arrival informs the Duty Officer of the current situation which enables him to make the decision of calling the detectives to attend the scene and the sergeant supervisor and day duty officer arrives. This depicts low relationship since the day duty officer should at least have had arrived earlier than he did. In addition, there is a low task behavior from the time the duty officer arrived; most of the tasks had been executed prior to his arrival. Case study 2 As Rogers (2008) explains “coaching is helping and supporting people to manage their potential to develop their skills and improve their performance.” Roger’s Experiential  Learning Cycle could be applied in case study 2 whereby the senior officer being the coach and the officers who received the radio call on Saturday night as the trainee. When the informant identified the crime scene instead of just instructing the junior officer and possibly the third year constable who had not had much experience in policing, the senior officer could have applied the Experiential Learning Cycle by Rogers (2008). In this regard, the senior officer should have first undertaken the activity of setting up a crime scene in the patient’s house as a demonstration to the junior officers. This could have acted as the practical training part as explained by Rogers. Then upon accomplishing the first part of the set up the crime scene the junior officers would have reflected on the process that had been undertaken to set up the first part of the crime scene. After this they would have comprehended the process and the requirements. Then the senior officer should have supervised the junior officers in setting up the second part of the crime scene, two houses up. The senior officer acting as a coach to the junior officers should have assessed whether they had set up the crime scene correctly at the upstairs house as they had been trained. In case they had not set the scene appropriately, the senior officer could have offered guidance on the necessary amendments or if they had set it up well he should have commended them. As Hersey et al. (2006) and Kezar (2001) explains that coaching involves sharing ideas and facilitating decision making, the senior officer should offer a platform for sharing ideas with the juniors as well as allowing them to execute these ideas. Further, the senior officer should have demonstrated how to handle the crime scene exhibits, the baseball bat and plastic cricket. In addition, the senior officer should have demonstrated how to go about using the camera and the video camera to gather information from the crime scene. This would have facilitated for learning first of the junior officers on how to handle these gadgets and the information collected thereof. Interpretation of the information collected would have also been necessary where the senior officer would have trained the juniors on how to go about it. As the senior officer in case study 2 did in instructing the junior officer in taking a video walk-through, he should have been pivotal in doing the same. The same applies for obtaining statements from witnesses and undertaking arrest of the patient. The senior officer should have involved the junior officer in all stages of the investigation in case study 2 while retaining the leading role so as to boost the junior officers’ ability in their work. This is similar to Thompson (2010) findings that Participants’ response to the survey question regarding leadership development skills indicated that coaching by seniors played a more significant role than formal leadership in developing their leadership skills. It can thus be concluded that project managers who are committed to the growth of team members could significantly contribute to the team’s development. Such project managers could be more effective leaders contributing to successful project outcomes. Case study 3 As Baker (2000) explains “in any given situation, the leader is the individual trying to influence the behavior of others and may not necessarily be the highest ranking person” (p.77) and “tactical situations are often different, appropriate leadership requires clear analysis and judgment” (p.76). In this context the leader in case study 3 is the four years constable who takes the initiative of leading others through the crime scene and arresting the suspect (Maccoby, 2000). Therefore, the policing accountability as explained by CorboCrehan (2011) “police must be accountable for their decisions and they must be able to explain their decisions,” the four year constable would have the greatest accountability in these circumstances as the leader (Kouzes and Posner, 2007). As they arrived at the crime scene the three officers heard from the radio that the suspects had been seen leaving the house they had broke into the four years constable who was driving stopped the vehicle, stepped out and jumped over the fence in order to gain entry into the broken house. All this time the constable had taken charge over the crime situation, with the other officers following his lead. In this case the leader would be held accountable for the decision to jump over the fence. Could this action have put the people who were in the house in greater danger? Was it the only way that the suspect could have been pursued? Was it a right move? Why did he act that way? In this case the constable made a quick analysis and judgment of the situation as a good leader should do. In other words, as CorboCrehan (2011) explains the constable tried to identify and do the right thing police both ethically and legally not just to avoid getting in trouble but because the officer wanted to be a good police officer; this officer is an accountable officer. The officer risks his life by shouting to the suspect to stop where he was and proceeding to attempt to make an arrest after some struggle. The officer did not know what to expect from the suspect and could have possibly been injured in the line of his decision to pursue the suspect. “There are many ideals that although not legally required for their work, police officers might want to have for instance courage , compassion, and respect from workmates, senior officers and the community” (CorboCrehan, 2011), the constable could have chosen to remain safe by waiting for the suspects to emerge and shoot at them. The constable takes further initiative of organizing vehicles to convey the suspects and supervising the crime scene until the supervising sergeant arrived. Upon being held accountable in such a case as case study 3, the constable could be promoted can receive an official commendation or even receive gratitude from the public for his initiative. References Baker, T. (2000). Sergeants and police officers. In D. V. Fraustrino (Ed.), Effective police leadership (pp.73-89). Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications. Corbo Crehan, A. (2011). Ethics in policing. In P. Birch and V. Herrington (Eds.), Policing in practice (pp.147-160). South Yarra, Vic.: Palgrave Macmillan. Corbo Crehan, A. and McMahon, B. (2006). Duty of care. Charles Sturt University: Goulburn. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. and Johnson, D. (2006). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources. Academic Internet Publishers. Hollander, E. P. (1992). Leadership, Followership, Self, and Others. Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43-54. Kezar, A. (2001). Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 23(1), 85-101. Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. (2007). The Leadership Challenge. (4th. ed.) San Francisco, CA. Wiley. Maccoby, M. (2000). Understanding the Difference Between Management and Leadership. Research Technology Management, 43(1), 57-61. Rogers, C. (2008). Leading from the front. In Leadership Skills in policing (pp.76-92). Oxford; NY: Oxford University Press. Thompson, K. N. (2010). Servant-Leadership: An Effective Model for Project Management. PhD dissertation, Capella University. Read More

If a leader has above average amounts of task and relationship behavior (style 2), if he/she has above average amounts of relationship behavior and below average amounts of task behavior (style 3) while if a leader has below average amounts of relationship and task behavior he is said to be employing style 4. This presents a simplification of leadership in policing activities that can help identify and discuss the leadership deployed in case study 1. In case study 1, the leadership style employed by the ‘partner’ is style 2 that is there was above average amounts of task and relationship behavior.

At the instance when an informant reported that a female was seen falling off the Anzac Bridge an investigation was conducted by the ‘partner’ and the other officer as they were directed by the informant. This is an indicator of good relationship behavior where the two police officers were together involved in the investigation as they were directed to where the female had landed, behind a fence which was below the bridge. This relationship behavior between the two officers laid the foundation for the case under preview in that there was cooperation that aided them to ascertain the details together.

Therefore, from the onset the two officers (leader and follower) had good rapport in handling the Anzac Bridge case. When the two partners’ officers arrived at the scene of the incident the leader informed the follower to quickly climb over the fence to ascertain the situation of the female who had fallen off the bridge. In asking the follower officer to climb over the fence the communication between the leader and the follower can be easily decoded to what the leader told the follower “quickly climb over the fence as I give the situation report.

” This depicts clear task and relationship behavior. The leader spells out the duty of the follower officer as in what to do (checking the female situation), how to do it (climb over the fence), when to do it (at the very instance the female was located following the direction of the informant), and who is to do it (the partner; the follower officer). As the follower officer climbed over the fence and established the situation of the female who had fallen, he communicates the same to the leader officer and in return the return makes a situation report over the radio.

The relationship between the two officers in this situation is clearly cordial. As Baker (2000) explains “the extent to which leaders effectively communicate that is how leaders listen, facilitate and support certain behaviors” is the indication of relationship between a leader and follower. The communication between the two officers is good where the lead officer listens what she is told by the follower officer. The communication and listening capacity of the leader in this situation clearly represents the relationship between the two officers.

Additionally, when the ambulance arrived, the leader officer who in this case is referred to as ‘my partner’ asks the follower officer to stay with them while she set up a crime scene. This was again is a task behavior depicted by the lead officer, directing the follower to remain at the scene of the incident to set up a crime scene. The lead officer does not ask the follower officer to set up the crime scene instead she does it. She clearly depicts her task (who is to do it). The follower officer continues to handle his following role as the ambulance officers directs him to help in holding the fluid bags and also bracing the female legs and arms.

In view of the incidences from the time the two officers were informed about the incident to this juncture of setting up the crime scene it is clear that the leadership style 2 was in play. The task and relationship behavior was quite above average as per Baker (2000) explanations. In the second part of case study 1 when the duty officer arrives and a quick debrief was given to him, leadership style 4 was employed. The quick debrief upon arrival informs the Duty Officer of the current situation which enables him to make the decision of calling the detectives to attend the scene and the sergeant supervisor and day duty officer arrives.

Read More