Table of Contents
Authoritarian leadership is a style that involves leaders who control and dictate the decision making process in the task or group (Yahaya et al, 2016). Largely, these types of managers carry out their functions on the premise that their direction and contribution is necessary for proper functioning. For motivation of their employees, they believe in the carrot and stick approach. Monetary reward to them comes in form of the carrot whereas their being fired and/or reprimanded represents the stick (Cockcroft, 2014). Procedure or task oriented individuals favour this approach: these sorts of people seek to control work largely. However, this approach may at times destroy personal incentive and morale. In such a set up, workers may turn into mindless robot or quit. In the 21st century, this system has worked where managers have had few incentives for the workers.
Democratic management involves the subordinates and the manager in decision-making (Yahaya et al, 2016). Actually, the system presupposes that the source of power is the subordinate. It ensures that the manager does what is necessary and appropriate for the set goals to be understood. Largely, it entails clear-cut goals, shared knowledge and mutual trust. In this system, subordinates undergo continuous development in an effort to stimulate a desire and capacity to be involved in achieving the objectives.
Laissez-faire management is distinguished by the fact that the source of power is not used or perceived but rather used effectively in management of subordinates (Olins, 2017). The system is preferable for professionals especially premised on the fact that they are disciplined individuals operating in an autonomous set up (Yahaya et al, 2016). Their effectiveness is only attainable in a self-contained system that already has the necessary knowledge and skills in solving problems. Moreover, for accomplishment of the task in laissez-faire, professionals require little facilitative activity or goal setting from the manager.
The patrol sergeant
In management, this requires swift punishment for disobedience, adherence to the chain of command, established authority and strict rules (Cockcroft, 2014). Consequently, the authoritarian approach suits this model. Such officers are required to conform to their job parameters to effect conviction and arrest rates. However, it has been blamed for turning officers into change resistant robots. The nature of a patrol sergeant calls for tight control and command as well as supervision. Those that chose to disobey orders are subjected to ridicule, intimidation (Olins, 2017). Why is this system of management preferred for the patrol sergeant?
- They are notably lazy as they are good in hiding during working hours
- Most patrol sergeants only became police officers for lack of a better job
- They are not really intelligent
- Succumbs to outside pressures more than that of their superiors
- Inflexible to change
- Does not care about the mandates and goals of the agency
- Poor leaders who would rather be assigned little responsibility due to less ambition
- Dislikes the public and the job too
In this system, the subordinate is always aware of his position since it is clear that decisions borne by the leader are simply orders to them (Olins, 2017). For the sergeant, all he has to do is perform assignments and cooperate. Obviously, the most notable disadvantage is that development of the officer is neglected and creativity stifled.
The S.W.A.T Team commander
Personnel under this team have a greater level of self-direction, self-control, self-motivated and are ambitious (Yahaya et al, 2016). Laissez-faire is preferable for this group since workers enjoy their physical and mental work activities if given a chance, these officers have the ability to be creative and imaginative in their performance (Olins, 2017). In fact, they believe that there is untapped avenue within the organization and seek do their roles to perfection on the premise that:
- They depend less on the subculture of police for support for guidance
- Most of their objectives are similar to police goals
- They can match demands put on them since they rank high in ingenuity and creativity
- Officers realize seriousness and responsibility of their job
- They are self-directed officers that can meet their set objectives without facilitative activity
Under the laissez -faire, the subordinate is less appreciated, as their gains are not communicated to the whole organization. The S.W.A.T commander tends to operate on a professional platform that encourages self-discipline and minimum interference. At the core of this spectrum is motivation and needs assessment.
We can do it today.
Police chief
The police chief ought to give up the decision-making power and control to the subordinates (Yahaya et al, 2016). However, this does not necessarily mean taking a vote for decision to be arrived at. Performance appraisal, participative management, job enlargement, delegation and decentralization are at the core of their operations (Olins, 2017). The police chief ought to listen actively and respond effectively after establishing rapport with the senior police officers. Largely, the leader should not only allow for the input of the subordinates when the matter is of less importance to them. This suits the democratic style of management where mutual understanding between subordinates and management is crucial. Since the meeting does not involve conflict, this style of management is suitable. This form of senior leadership entails a culture of art and science of indirect and direct influence.
- Cockcroft, T. (2014). Police culture and transformational leadership: outlining the contours of a troubled relationship. Policing: a journal of policy and practice, 8(1), 5-13.
- Olins, W. (2017). The new guide to identity: How to create and sustain change through managing identity. Routledge.
- Yahaya, R., & Ebrahim, F. (2016). Leadership styles and organizational commitment: literature review. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190-216.