FBI Teamwork and Leadership Issue - Ruby Ridge - Case Study Example

FBI Teamwork and Leadership Issue-Ruby Ridge Case Table of Contents Synopsis/Key Issues 3 Objective 5 Method 5 Case Analysis5 Strategic team through the strategic leadership profile 5 Strategy- making approach 7 Core of the Business (Mission and Vision) 9 Strategic Choices of the Leaders 10 Recommendations 11 Conclusion 15 References 15 Performance management process……………………………………………………………….13 Synopsis/Key Issues The case revolves around Randy Weaver whom the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AFT) agents believed was a member of the white supremacist group called Aryan Nation. The AFT agents were investigating the white supremacist group when they received reports about Weaver (Theoharis, 1999). According to AFT agents, Weaver was associated with this group and the group was in violations of federal weapons laws. One of the informants of AFT posed as an illegal arms dealer who wanted to buy weapons from Weaver. After several attempts to persuade Weaver to make this illegal sale, the AFT informant finally succeeded in convincing Weaver to sell him short guns. In December 1990, Weaver was indicted for selling illegal weapons and was arrested by AFT agents two months later. However, Weaver was released but failed to appear for his trial date. Consequently, the case was referred to the United States Marshall Service with the warning that Weaver was a dangerous man. One year later, the marshals went to the Weaver’s mountain Cabin with an aim of having him arrested (Theoharis, 1999). In the process of manning the cabin, a shoot-out took place that led to the death of U.S. Marshall Degan William and Weaver’s son. The Federal Bureau Investigation’s Hostage Team was requested by the U.S. Marshall on the group to provide assistance. A team of 50 members from the FBI arrived at the scene, placing the cabin under strict surveillance. On August 22, 1992, Randall Weaver was shot and wounded by Lon, Horiuchi, one of the FBI sharpshooters. In Horiuchi’s opinion, he shot Weaver because he believed he was about to shoot at a helicopter overhead. Following the shooting incidence, Weaver and his friend Harris attempted to run back to the cabin. Horiuchi responded by firing another shot that seriously wounded Weaver’s wife and Harris. After a ten-day siege, Weaver and his three daughters surrendered peacefully. The Justice Department arrested Weaver and Harris and prosecuted them for the murder of U.S. Marshal Degan. However, the federal jury acquitted Harris and Weaver of the all the weapon and murder charges in 1993. The Justice and FBI conducted a broad range of reviews of the operations with an aim of establishing what went wrong. A shooting-review by the FBI concluded that Horiuchi did not intentionally violate any agency rule by shooting Weaver’s wife. In the course of court hearing, it was noted that the FBI did not gather enough information before charging up the mountain. In particular, the FBI agents received a great deal of exaggerated or inaccurate information concerning the Weaver’s case. Once at the scene, the FBI did not demand more timely briefing from the U.S. Marshals before proceeding with the operation. The court also heard that the FBI did not have an effective operation plan. The FBI leaders who drafted the operation plan drafted only the shoot on sight rule of engagement and contained no negotiation option. The rules of engaged given to the FBI agents before charging up the mountain were not consistent with the FBI deadly policy. The FBI leadership was to blame for this wrongful information. The FBI agents on the scene refused to abide by these rules of engagement because they felt that they were inappropriate and not in line with the FBI deadly force policy. With respect to who approved the rules of engagement, it was noted that Potts and Glen did not discuss the precise language that will be employed. There was no effective coordination between the FBI top leaders from the FBI headquarter and the senior FBI agents on the ground. Objective The principal objective of this paper is to explore leadership flaws during the FBI actions at Ruby Ridge and to provide necessary recommendations for future FBI projects. Method This study used case study method in exploring the leadership flaws during the FBI actions at Ruby Ridge. The case study was deemed appropriate for this study because it effectively addressed the key issues of the case. As pointed out by Kothari (2008), case study defines three main points namely (1) the problem, (2) data analysis, and (4) the probable solution. This paper employed secondary data collection method. Secondary data was obtained from journals, books, magazines and internet postings. Case Analysis Strategic team through the strategic leadership profile Analyzing the strategic competencies of the FBI leaders following the Ruby Ridge incident requires the full understanding of the core competencies of all strategic leaders. BC Public Service Agency (n.d) defines the term competence as to the meeting of skill, knowledge, and the ultimate application of this knowledge to demonstrate these skills, behaviors and attitudes in the workplace. The team leadership at the FBI can be analyzed upon six core competencies. Strategic leaders are required to build strategic alliances. BC Public Service Agency (n.d) argues out that building strategic alliance entails skills and knowledge to engage in external and internal stakeholder analysis as well as to negotiate agreements and alliances based on a proper understanding of power and politics. Based on this principle, the FBI seems to have scored very well in dealing with the Ruby Ridge incident. By building proper alliances with the ATF, the FBI were able to get the secretive dealings of MR. Weaver was dealing with illegal firearms in the country. As observed in the case study, Mr. Weaver had been involved in the illegal selling of firearm in the US for many years without the realization of the FBI and other investigative agents. However, because of the cordial alliances with other agencies, the FBI could finally be varnished with the necessary information about Mr. Weaver’s operation in illegal firearm selling. This kind of alliance between the ATF and the FBI is one of its kinds, and this is what all strategic leaders ought to have. By no doubt, it would have taken the FBI quite a long time before they could finally unearth this illegal fire arm business by Mr. Weaver, but through the effective strategy of forging working alliances with the ATF, secretive information were finally brought to the realization of the FBI. Another principle sought of strategic leaders is to have vision and goal setting. The principle of vision and goal setting entails knowledge and skills in coming up with official and operative objectives for the unit and to have a system of measuring effectiveness of attaining goals. BC Public Service Agency (n.d) contends that this role requires developing a vision for the unit and then translating it into action. When this is put into the perspective of the Ruby Ridge case study, the vision and goal of the ATF and that of the FBI do not seem to be consistent with this principle. While this principle requires units to have systems for measuring effectiveness of their operations, the ATF and FBI did not have these measures in place when they started dealing with Mr. Weaver. Their only goal was to capture Mr. Weaver without the realization that their actions would end up causing other issues resulting from improper measures of effectiveness. The aftermath of the Ruby Ridge incident is a true testament of how the ATF and the FBI failed to embrace the knowledge of incorporating systems of measuring effectiveness. At the end, we realize the ATF and FBI shooting had resulted in unwanted killings. Strategic leaders are required to solve problems in a creative way. In order to solve problems creatively, it requires the knowledge and skills to cultivate creative problem solving in the unit through critical reflection, risk assessment, problem analysis, and rewarding innovation. Effective problem solving requires innovative technologies and methods to get things done. When dealing with issues, effective problem solving requires a different model of reframing and structuring problems in a totally different way. Finally, creative problem solving requires collaborative approaches that increase innovation and creativity. Putting this principle of creative problem solving in the Ruby Ridge case study, clearly the FBI and the ATF lacked creative ways when trying to arrest Mr. Weaver. Having known that Mr. Weaver was staying in a remote cabin house where it was difficult to make an arrest, they units should have devised some creative methods to be used incase Mr. Weaver resisted attempts of arrest. Instead of fostering these creative methods, the ATF and the FBI went ahead and utilized the traditional use of force in arresting Weaver, a method that resulted in the death of innocent people. Strategy- making approach When analyzing Strategy- making approach of a unit or organization, there are three elements to be taken into account. Performance consensus is one of the main elements in analyzing strategy-making approach. Performance consensus requires an agreement among officials and organizational members on fostering effectiveness of the approaches and the satisfaction strategy-making approaches. In particular, performance consensus requires are parties involved to be in agreement of the competitive strategies being invented to avoid friction afterwards (Pretorius & Maritz, 2010). Ends and means specificity is another element that makes the foundation of strategy-making approach. Ends are defined as the major higher level mission, purposes, goals or the objectives set out by units, each of which significantly influencing the overall viability and direction of the unit in question. On the other hand, the means can be defined as the actual patterns of action which marshal organizational resources into the kind of postures once implemented they lead to increased probability of attaining organizational ends. Lastly, ends and means flexibility is another element that is required in effective strategy making. This element explains the flexibility involved in planning structures, the kind of tolerance for change as well as the flexibility involved in planning the period as opposed to the usual organizational rigidity (Pretorius & Maritz, 2010). Clearly, strategy making is one important aspect that best describes whether a certain organization or unit is effective in meeting its mission or objectives. Putting the FBI and the ATF into the perspective of strategy-making approach, there is clear evidence that in regards to the Ruby Ridge incident did not reflect most of the elements as outlined in the strategy-making approach. While the approach requires a high degree of flexibility in handling a certain scenario, the actions of the FBI and the ATF are rigid and traditional in nature. There is no evidence of flexibility when the agents go to Mr. Weaver’s place without any alternative plan besides shooting at the fugitive. With flexibility, the strategy making of these agents would have been a bit different, and incorporate some new approaches to dealing with inductees who defy arrest from security agents. Instead, the FBI and the ATF ended up using force and as a result two innocent lives were lost. Core of the Business (Mission and Vision) Analyzing the core of the business in the Ruby Ridge case study requires taking into consideration different aspects of the knowledge of core of the business. An effective core of business entails better strategic vision. Deep understanding of core business by expert leaders allows for the identification of strategic opportunities as well as challenges. The effectiveness of a core business is defined by the quest by leaders in a specific field to demand the people who work under them to work in an exemplary way (Gill, 2012). Credibility is the other aspect required in a better understanding of the core of business. Expert leaders typically demand respect based on their respective experiences. A core business analysis requires the consideration of whether leaders embrace better ability to cut the red tape. When expert leaders understand the core of the business, they always tend to create better working environments for core workers to improve their actions in the future (Gill, 2012). Lastly, longer-term perspective is another critical element that can be used to analyze the core of a business. Putting the Ruby Ridge case study in the perspective of core business, the FBI and the ATF leadership show an ambivalent feature in dealing with changes in their units. Whereas it seems that the FBI in particular did not have a clear definition of their core business initially, later on there are reviews being done to improve their actions in future cases. The expectations of the department of justice in particular to the actions of the FBI are of high standards. The department of justice is determined to ensure that the actions of law-enforcing officers do not bleach the law of which they are supposed to protect. Specifically, the department of justice was not pleased by the manner in which the FBI conducted the arrest of Mr. Weaver. The review undertaken by the department of justice was critical of the manner in which the FBI agents did the shoot-on-sight. The rule of engagement upon which the FBI principles are founded was in particular bleached by the shootings that resulted in the killing of two innocent lives. Strategic Choices of the Leaders Leadership strategy requires various steps that involve reviewing the business strategy in regards to the implications for new requirements of leadership. The first step to leadership strategy is to identify the kind of drivers that are involved in the business strategy. Pasmore (2014) call these drivers as the critical choices that leaders make concerning how to position their unit or organization to gain advantage of its weaknesses, strengths, opportunities and threats that it has in the business. These drivers are the things that render the strategy of an organization unique from other similar organizations. Though drivers are few in number, they can help in the understanding of the essential role of leaders as well the collective leadership of the unit or organization. Specifically strategic leaders ought to be driven by the following attributes. Strategic leaders ought to determine the number of leaders to be involved in planning the strategic plans of the organizations in the future. Strategic leadership also entails making decisions as to the individual qualities of the people who are going to be involved in deciding the next course of action of the organization (Pasmore, 2014). For instance, decisions should be reached in regards to the expected experience, age, gender; education, race, and culture of action are some of the qualities that might be required of the strategic leaders. Skills, knowledge, behaviors, competencies and abilities are the other drivers that influence the decision of strategic leaders. All leaders in a strategic plan are required to portray a high degree of these drivers in order to put the unit or organization in a competitive advantage. Putting the FBI under the perspective of strategic making of choices, the mission and vision of the FBI has been to improve its operations within the rule of rule. As seen in the aftermath actions of Ruby Ridge incident, the FBI conducted a review of the actions and subsequently disciplined those officers that bleached the law while on duty (Morganthau & Isikoff, 1995). Specifically, in 1995 the director of FBI, Mr. Freech announced immediate disciplinary actions against 12 members of the FBI were identified as having not followed the core principles of the FBI in executing the shootings at the MR. Weaver’s compound. Recommendations The FBI should adopt performance-based management. Performance-based management, according to Julnes (2008) is a system where strategic planning and performance measurement complement and support each other. United States of Personnel Management regulations cited in Naff and Riccucci (2007) defines performance-based management as the integrated processes agencies employ to prepare appraisals, measuring and rewarding accomplishments, evaluating and enhancing performance, identifying and addressing developmental needs, identifying accountability for completing organizational objectives and goals and clarifying and communicating organizational objectives and goals. There is a broad range of reasons why performance measurement is necessary. As argued out by Spitzer (2007) and Tangen (2004), measurement enables accountability, increases objectivity, motivates, enables prediction, enhances understanding, provides early warning signal, improves problem solving, enhances decision making, increases alignment, facilitate feedback, promotes consistency, provides the basis for goal setting, and improves execution. Hatry (2006) provides multiple uses of performance measurement. These uses include benchmarking, contract monitoring, directing operations, reallocation of resources, program evaluation, catalyst for improved operations, support for budgeting/planning efforts, and accountability. Performance measurement also supports a myriad of management functions. In particular, measures enables supervisor or organizational managers to identify operating weaknesses and strengths, acknowledge improvements when they take place and target areas for improvement (Ammons, 2007; Tangen, 2004). An excellent measurement system can improve organizational managers’ ability to motivate their employees, schedule their work, instruct them in their tasks as well as develop their skills. Ellis and Normal (2015) are of the opinion that performance management process involves the following steps: (1) determining objectives, (2) clarifying expectations, (3) communicate standards, (4) ensure resources, (5) measure performance, (6) evaluate progress, (7) solve problems, (8) provide support, and (9) consider discipline. FBI to leaders should follow these steps with any existing policies and working agreement. Ellis and Normal (2015) further observe that effective supervision of law enforcement officers is important in ensuring that the organization attains its strategic objectives in a coordinated, ethical, efficient and effective manner. Existing literature demonstrate that organizational leaders should have adequate skills and knowledge in order to effective manage and lead their organizations. Figure 1 below demonstrates performance management process. Figure 1. Performance management process. Source: Ellis & Normal (2015) In order to minimize cases of FBI officers injured or killed in the line of duty, the FBI top leaders should consider SafeShield initiative proposed by International Association of Chiefs of Police aimed at protecting law enforcement officers from being harmed. The goals of SafeShield include finding solutions that incorporate improved uniforms, equipment, training and policies as well as identifying threats and problems affecting law enforcement officers’ safety. The FBI top leaders should play and integral role in the strategic planning process. The strategic responsibilities of organizational leaders include setting strategic objectives and goals, allocating the necessary resources and deciding whether the organization should acquire new business or divest any of its business. A strategy, as argued out by Hills and Jones (2012) is the outcome of a formal planning process. The five steps of formal strategic planning process include selecting major corporate goals and mission, critically analyzing the firm’s external competitive environment to identify threats and opportunities, critical analyzing the firm’s internal operating environment to identify the firm’s weaknesses and strengths, selecting strategies that correct its weaknesses and build on the firm’s strength as well as implementing the strategies. However, opponents of the formal planning systems are of the opinion that we live in a global world in which ambiguity, intricacy and uncertainty dominates. These opponents, according to Hill and Jones (2012) further argue that a small chance event can have an unpredicted and a large effect on outcomes. In this unpredicted circumstances, Hill and Jones (2012) further posits that even the most carefully thought strategic plan can be influenced by unforeseen and unpredictable change. The FBI top leaders and other organizational managers should strategically and effectively utilize the information at their disposal. This is referred to as strategic decision-making. Some of the decisions made by organizational leaders are sometime influenced by cognitive biases and as such, they end up making poor decisions. So as to adopt the proposed changes, FBI top leaders should employ the seven steps of change process suggested by Griffins (2008). These steps include (1) recognizing the need for change, (2) establishing goals for the change, (3) diagnosing the relevant variables, (4) selecting appropriate change technique, (5) planning for the adoption of the change, (6) actual implementation, and (7) evaluation and follow up. In sustaining long-term change, the FBI top leaders should take into consideration the structures, technology, policies as well as the processes that will have the potential to uphold and sustain the proposed change after its adoption. As pointed by Griffins and Moorhead (2011) organizational leaders have a role to play immediately after the adoption of the proposed change. Conclusion It is evident in the case study that they were leadership flaws during the Randy Ridge operation. The FBI leaders failed to gather adequate information before starting the operation, which ended up claiming the lives of people. Besides, the rules of engagement were not strategically prepared and were not in line with the goals, objectives and mission of FBI. In particular, the engagement rules were not consistent with the FBI deadly policy. Organizational leaders should learn from this case and devise strategies of avoiding similar leadership flaws in their future projects. An effective leader should be visionary, motivated, focused, and strategic as well as have the ability to predict the future. References Ammons, D.N. (2007). A tool for accountability and performance improvement. Retrieved 25th June, 2015, from http://www.sogpubs.unc.edu/cmg/cmg16.pdf BC Public Service Agency.(n.d). Where ideas work. Retrieved 26th June 2015, from, http://www2.gov.bc.ca/local/myhr/documents/jobs_hiring/strategic_leaders_competency_guide.pdf DIANE Publishing Company. (1996). Ruby Ridge: Report of the subcommittee on terrorism, technology and government information of the senate committee on the judiciary. Collingdale: DAINE Publishing Company. Ellis, G., & Normal, A.H. (2015). Performance management strategies for effective leadership: An accountability Process. Retrieved on 26th June, 2015, from https://leb.fbi.gov/2015/february/performance-management-strategies-for-effective-leadership-an-accountability-process International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2015). SafeShield. Retrived 26th June, 2015, from http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/ExecutiveServices/BestPracticesDocuments/tabid/255/Default.aspx?id=1020&v=1 Griffins, R.W. (2008). Management. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Griffins, R.W., & Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Gill, L. (2012). Systemic action research for ethics students: curbing unethical business behavior by addressing core values in next generation corporate. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 25(5), 371-391. Hatry, H.P. (2006). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Hill C.W., & Jones G.R. (2012) Essentials of strategic management (3rd Ed.). Mason, OH: South-wester Hill C.W., & Jones n. Julnes, P.L. (2008). Performance-based management systems: Effective implementation and maintenance. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press Kothari, C.R. (2008). Research methodology: methods and techniques, (2nd ed.). New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd. Morganthau, T., & Isikoff, M. (1995). The echoes of Ruby Ridge. (Cover story). Newsweek, 126(9), 24. Naff, K.C., & Riccucci, N.M. (2007). Personnel management in government: Politics and process (6th edn.). Boca Raton, FL: CRS Press Pasmore, W. (2014). Developing a leadership strategy a critical ingredient for organizational success. Retrieved 26th June 2015, from, http://www.ccl.org/Leadership/pdf/research/LeadershipStrategy.pdf Pretorius, M., & Maritz,R.(2010). Strategy-making approach matters a great deal. Draft paper for journal of business strategy. vol. 1, pp. 1-9. Tangen, S. (2004). Performance measurement systems. Stockholm: Royal Institute of Technology Theoharis, A.G. (1999). The FBI: A comprehensive reference guide. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Read More