Leadership Styles and Ethics for Law Enforcement Administrators - Research Paper Example

Ethics and Leadership Styles and Arguably, no other profession demands high ethical standards than that of law enforcement given the challenges that the officers have to grapple with on the ground. On the ground, there is every reason for them to engage in noble cause corruption. However, how well they uphold their professional codes of conducts or how high they rate in ethical standards may well depend on their leaders. Their leaders have moral as well as a legal duty to ensure compliance to ethical standards by the subordinates. The kind of leadership styles they may opt to employ may also shape the destiny of the organization since the ethics of followers will rise or fall depending on those of the leader. Leaders in the law enforcement agencies should themselves exercise high ethical standards which would then influence the followers to follow suit. Introduction The issue of ethical leadership has never been so relevant in law enforcing than it is today given the current issues of corruption, racial discrimination, violence and brutality and other escalating criminal activities. Given this chaotic nature of our streets, it is possible that law enforcers feel only connected to their ethical and professional obligations in theory, but on the ground, such ethics is thrown through the window due to the unpredictable and complex situations. This is where ethical leadership comes in to constantly offer training and guidance to the followers and encourage them always to remain within the boundaries of ethical standards and professional code of conduct governing the service. Leadership Styles Leadership is an appreciated topic in all types of organizations, both private and public and is considered an essential component in the steering of organizational goals and objectives. Law enforcement agencies have also endeavored to institute effective leaders within its ranks due to the realization that quality leadership directly affects the quality of performance. Leadership can be taken to mean the process where a person or groups of persons selects, trains, and influences one or more followers to appreciate and agree to what needs to be done to realize the mission and objectives of the organization (Lussier & Achua, 2012). This, as Lussier & Achua (2012) notes, can be achieved by such leaders through humbly conveying a prophetic vision for the future of an organization in a manner that respects and identifiable with the beliefs and values of the followers. According to Lussier & Achua (2012), leadership has several key components which include: Leadership is a process that takes time; leadership involves influencing others; it happens within the context of a group; it happens within the context of a group; it involves goal attainment which should be shared by the leaders and the followers. Leadership styles, on the other hand, refers to the style a leader uses to provide direction, implement a plan and motivate people to work towards the attainment of particular organizational goals (Lussier & Achua, 2012). In law enforcement, there are several leadership styles that can be adapted to fit particular situations, and all have their advantages and disadvantages. This paper discusses by way of comparing and contrasting autocratic and democratic leadership styles. Autocratic Leadership Style In this style of leadership, the leader determines all the policies, activities and goals of the organization and their major role is to dictate to others what needs to be done, but does not participate in the real work (Lussier & Achua, 2012). They only take part in the meeting and only when issuing out orders on what needs to be done, and they do not take advice from anyone. Under the leadership of an autocratic leader, the followers are not sure of what to do and are always waiting for direction from the leader on what to do, and all of the followers are answerable to the leader for all of their actions. There is little if any room for personal contribution or expression and this style is structured towards structured set of rewards and punishment. This kind of leadership does not trust the followers and relies on threats and punishment to influence staff. Leaders in law enforcement can in this style useful in several situations. First, it can be used with new untrained staffs who do not know which tasks to perform or the procedures to follow. It can also be used when junior law enforcers do not respond to any other form of leadership style or when there is limited time for making a decision. On the other hand, it should not be used when: the followers are tense, resentful or fearful; when there is low staff morale; and when followers expect their grievances to be heard. Democratic Leadership Style Also known as participative style, this is a form of shared leadership where the leader promotes a feeling of inclusion and satisfaction among the followers (Lussier & Achua, 2012). In law enforcement, the followers are always aware of what needs to be done and are guided by the leader all through the processes. Members are also free to express their opinions and contributions which are highly valued and taken into account. Consequently, the followers not only feel some sense of responsibility for the furtherance of the organizational goals and objectives, but also show more interesting their work because they feel they “co-own” the law enforcement agency. A democratic leader collects information from the followers before making a decision, and produces work that is high quality and quantity due to consultation and inclusion. The followers are more trusted by the leadership and consequently, they become more motivated and cooperative. Moreover, unlike the autocratic leader who uses threats and punishment, a democratic leader gets things done through motivation, encourages the staff to grow on their job and get promoted and recognizes all their achievements. Unlike the autocratic style, this type of leadership is not appropriate when used with law enforcers that are highly skilled and experienced as well as when the leader needs to institute operational changes or to resolve individual or group problems. It should also not be used when there is no enough time to get the input of every law enforcer or when the leader cannot afford any mistakes. However, it is more effective when leaders, for instance, those in law enforcement wants to keep staff abreast about matters affecting them or wants to provide opportunities for staff to realize personal growth and development. Moreover, it is effective for leaders who want changes made or problems solved at departmental level or want to incorporate the followers in decision-making and problem solving duties. Noble cause corruption Noble cause corruption revolves around the question on whether the end justifies the means whatever that means maybe. This is an ethical issue which perhaps is the most threatening type of misconduct in law enforcement. Noble cause corruption advocates the doctrine that the end justifies the means (Crank & Caldero, 2010). Police are faced by many challenges in their bid to make our streets and communities safer, or all of us and this duty have never been too hard like now due to the ingenuity of criminals. Ideally, the officers are supposed to work within the confines of the laws of the land when executing their duties. However, situations arise requiring that the police step beyond their scope of work and deliberately violate the laws or even the constitution. At such times, they are way out of the moral compass. For example, a policeman may be aware of a drug dealer within his area of jurisdiction. However, if the police observe that every time the drug lord is arrested, he can use his contacts among them judges and prosecutors and before long; he is back on the streets. A good policeman may be disappointed by this act and opt to do something out of the scope of his work. Such a police may plan for the murder of the criminal or he may plant something that is seriously incriminating just to get the person off the streets. This is noble because corruption as the cop goes beyond his mandate in the name o safeguarding the neighborhood. The United States Department of Justice is privy to cases of noble cause corruption and fears that it is deeply rooted among the law enforcers (Crank & Caldero, 2010). What is more alarming is the fact that those committing this are officers that are highly placed in the service and are supposed to be acting as role models (Crank & Caldero, 2010). This practice is common because officers find it easy to judge a person on the sole reason of looking at what a person has done in the past. The public also seems to advocate this doctrine as it gets the job done faster and easier. However, noble cause corruption is misguided and has its negative aspects to the society in general and to the perpetrator in particular. This is because law enforcers do not operate under their own rule or whims but rather, their duties are governed by the law o the land for which they must uphold. Acting outside this realm of law attracts several repercussions. First, the officer in question may lose his or her job. This is because, as stated earlier, law enforcers are governed by the law of the land and there is a set of policies and procedures in every department which are also anchored in law and serve as a guide to the officer as they undertake their duties. Should they overstep their mandate, then they are in fact, committing crimes themselves, and they lose their jobs. Secondly, any form of crime is punishable by law no matter who you are. As such, the officers in question are punishable by the law either for taking matters on their hands or for overstepping their mandate. Moreover, noble cause corruption can seriously injure the reputation of the agency and thereby lose touch with the people they are supposed to serve. For instance, an officer may be driven by personal vendetta to revenge upon a criminal he thinks is responsible for the murder of a girlfriend to the officer. Suppose it turns out through a hearing that the alleged murderer did not do it, yet the officer had killed him, the reputation of the agency the officer is working for could be severely damaged. The end does not justify the means, and all persons are assumed innocent until they are proven guilty. Respect for the law and the constitutional rights of all individuals are assured, and they may not be replaced by any form of justification or rationalization. Law exists so as to govern the behavior of people; as such, criminals should be subjected to due process so as to be served with what they deserve. Ethical Leadership Ethical leadership is the demonstration of appropriate and professional conducts through personal relationships and actions as well as the promotion of such standards to the subordinates through a two-way communication, decision-making and reinforcement (Lussier & Achua, 2012). In law enforcement, this means that the leaders have an obligation to be more credible and authentic as ethical role models through engaging employing behavior that are deemed unselfish and appropriate in the eyes of others. Such behavioral mannerisms include being honest, treating people with respect and dignity they deserve and showing genuine concern to them and their welfare. Ethical leadership in law enforcement will, therefore, mean engaging in transparent, fair, and caring actions devoid of any discrimination whatsoever. Law enforcement leadership has evolved over time from the previous hierarchical model into a model that is more democratic that embraces collaboration and teamwork (Lussier & Achua, 2012). Their job is becoming more complicated and dangerous but in the same breath, the officers should exercise the highest levels of professionalism. Their role now being more based on a cooperative framework, and forums for advocacy of more ethical and professional decision-making have been instituted and a greater responsibility has been placed on the shoulders of the law enforcement agencies. The leaders in the law enforcement agencies are charged with the responsibility of supervising the law enforcement workers and while at it, they should seek to expand their sense of personal ethics especially in the face o larger and complex challenges. Ethical leadership also entails harnessing and directing our attention to ethical issues and standards, in this case meaning that law enforcers, in the exercise of their duties, should always strive to conduct themselves within the confines of ethical and moral standards as required of them by the law and their professional code of conduct (Lussier & Achua, 2012). Leaders in the law enforcement agencies should, as required by ethical leadership, emphasize on the significance of ethics, and this should be communicated and demonstrated on a daily basis through their actions (Lussier & Achua, 2012). Moreover, ethical leadership in law enforcement entails creating a command climate that fosters ethically appropriate behavioral outcomes amongst all the members of the force (Lussier & Achua, 2012). Furthermore, leaders in the law enforcement agencies should always remember that ethics is a two-way communication in that as the leaders direct the attention to ethical issues, and strive to enforce the standards amongst the subordinates, they should also create and promote a system where the subordinates can forward ethical issues that are of concern to them (Lussier & Achua, 2012). Ethical Leadership Principles Ethical leadership in law enforcement entails the exercise of ethical principles and includes: Respect for others: Ethical leaders have the ethical obligation of treating others with dignity and respect, meaning that they should always treat people as ends not as means to their own ends. This is the cognizance that law enforcement entails the protection of the rights of human beings, and the law enforcers should not deviate from this. Respect for others will draw the law enforcers to be empathetic, active listeners, and tolerant in dealing with complex and conflicting situations; Service to others: Ethical leaders are servers of people and, therefore, in the same breath, leaders in law enforcement agencies should have serving the public as their primary object. This means the servants come first in all their actions and that they should behave altruistically towards them. Service as pertains to ethical leadership involves mannerisms such as mentoring, team-building and empowerment of other people in the service; Justice for others; Justice for others is a central tenet in law and, therefore, in the exercise of their duties, leaders in law enforcement agencies should ensure justice and fairness in all the decisions that they make. This call for the leaders, for example, to treat the junior officers equally without any differential treatment except for situations that demand otherwise, in which case the reasons for differential treatment should be in the open foe all to see; Honesty towards others; Ethical leadership demands that leaders should exercise honesty in all their endeavors as nothing destroys trust faster than dishonesty, no matter the level trust a leader was previously held with. Honesty means being open with others by expressing our opinions and stands as clearly as we can, as well as finding an equilibrium between how much one needs to be open and what needs not be disclosed. Moreover, ethical leaders in law enforcement should neither promise what they cannot deliver, nor suppress obligations or evade responsibility, and what they believe, think, say or do should be internally consistent; Building communities; Ethical leaders charged with law enforcement should understand that they don’t operate in a vacuum; rather, they live in societies and communities in which all the members have a collective responsibility of building it, in various capacities. In the exercise of their duties, leaders should take into consideration the interests of others and incorporate the goals of everyone in the formulation of policies. Importance of Ethical Leadership to Law Enforcement Agencies Law enforcement agencies have a lot to benefit from leaders who are of high ethical standing. To begin with, such leaders suffice as role models, and it helps the more if they understand this responsibility and conduct themselves as role models emulating behaviors that request of their subordinates. This is a characteristic of transformational leadership and entails the leader instilling virtues like pride, respect, honesty and faith to the subordinates (Lussier & Achua, 2012) Ethical practice instruct leaders in law enforcement to understand and appreciate the thin line between friendship and agency integrity, the expectation of the agency against the interests of the client, as well as finding the intersection between personal interests and professional standards. A leader who appreciates this will avoid unethical behavior while exercising their duties. Moreover, the character of prosecutors can determine what cases to go after and how cases progresses in court. Their decisions, therefore, carry a lot of weight, a fact that makes it necessary for them to be subjected to the best ethical practices expected of their jobs. Ethical leadership results in strong positive relationships between the leaders and their subordinates in that a leader who exercises high ethical standards is more likely to win the respect and trust of their subordinates who feel satisfied with them. Moreover, besides being more optimistic about the future, subordinates under an ethical leader will be more willing to report more problems and also engage in ethical behaviors. Conclusion At the heart of law enforcement is ethical leadership which draws the face of the law enforcement agencies that the public judges them against. Leaders in law enforcement agencies have a responsibility of setting and cultivating ethical standards and behavior within the ranks of their followers, since the followers often have them as the most important source of information regarding their behaviors. It can be said that the quality of service by law enforcers cannot go beyond the level of their ethical standards; ethical leaders should institute ethical education in their agencies to eradicate unethical behavior which would otherwise occasion disparaging consequences. References Crank, J. P., & Caldero, M. A. (2010). Police ethics (Revised Printing): The corruption of noble cause. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Lussier, R., & Achua, C. (2012). Leadership: theory, application, & skill development. Massachusetts: Cengage Learning. . Read More