Don't Fall Prey to
Leadership
Inaction
EC Luke, CJM
As Baby Boomers retire and Millennials accept the reins in administration, jails need to look at the qualities of their leaders. In fact, in most correctional facilities, men and women emulate their leaders.
If their leaders are ethical, communicative, role models, competent, and—more importantly—decisive, then most likely their organization is strong and highly effective. However, if their leadership is passive in their approach and often inactive, the organization and its staff suffer greatly. This article discusses the consequences of an inactive leadership in jails and its detrimental effects on an organization.
The Role of Leadership Like most contemporary organizations, law enforcement agencies must have the ability to manage and juggle a multitude of complex issues in order to be successful. There are times when split-second decisions must be made with limited knowledge. In addition, the public expects and demands transparency and accountability from their law enforcement officials. The key figure in all of this is the leader of the agency.
The agency leader sets the tone for the entire organization. Key elements of the decision-making process begin and end with the leader of the agency. Enforcing laws, detecting and solving crime, keeping order, and maintaining public safety is a considerable responsibility for law enforcement leadership.
In addition, law enforcement leadership must be able to take immediate action when called upon. Any inaction—and the failure to take an active leadership role—by law enforcement leaders can be detrimental to the agency and public trust (Pearson-Goff & Herrington, 2014).
To be effective, law enforcement leadership needs to possess the following traits: • ethical, • trustworthy, • legitimacy, • role model, • ability to communicate, • competent, • decisive decision-making, and • creative and strategic thinking.
The ability to make difficult decisions under pressure is a very important skill for the law enforcement leader. Nothing is more frustrating than a leader who is afraid to make a decision (Pearson-Goff & Herrington, 2014).
When Leadership Succeeds For example, Dallas Police Chief David Brown was faced with a difficult decision after several of his officers had been wounded and killed. The sniper suspect was cornered in a parking garage behind a wall. Responding officers were unable to engage the suspect without endangering themselves to weapons fire.
A solution to use a robot armed with one pound of C-4 explosive was presented to Chief Brown. This concept had never been tried before, and there was great uncertainty. Too many explosives would have collapsed the parking garage, resulting in more deaths or injuries.
In order to end the sniper assault, Chief Brown gave the approval to execute the plan. Because of his decisiveness, the sniper suspect was killed and further bloodshed was avoided. The end result could have become catastrophic, then Chief Brown would have had a lot of explaining to do. However, Chief Brown chose to take action despite the risks (Sidner, & Simon, 2016).
Passive Leadership Leaders who are passive often possess the traits of leadership inaction. For example, they avoid: • conflict at all cost, • making decisions, • addressing problems, and • setting the example.
Passive leaders take a hands-off approach by displaying Management-by-Exception (MBEP) and laissez-faire leadership styles. Apathetic and indifferent attitudes are the hallmarks of passive leadership. This type of leader takes a “whatever” approach and leaves their organization to fend for themselves.
For example, a passive leader is unlikely to make the tough calls, such as the decision made by Chief Brown. Instead, this type of leader is paralyzed by his fear of making a mistake. He or she would prefer to sit idly by and watch the agency struggle instead of displaying the moral fortitude so desperately needed to set the appropriate example in a time of great need (Harold & Holtz, 2015).
When Leadership Fails Legendary college football coach Joe Paterno coached Penn State University from 1966 to 2011. Paterno’s football record and character were beyond approach. However, that quickly changed when allegations of sexual abuse involving young boys surfaced with fellow coach Jerry Sandusky.
Paterno and Sandusky had a close relationship. Eventually, it became known that the head coach had taken no actions to address the alleged child molestation allegations that were widely known. In addition, the school’s board members learned that School President Graham Spanier also had knowledge of the allegations. After a thorough investigation, Penn State University board members made the decision to fire both Coach Paterno and President Graham Spanier.
Paterno’s reputation is forever ruined over the sexual molestation of young boys that at times occurred in the men’s football locker room showers. For Paterno, football became bigger than taking action as a leader. Saving face became the predominant issue for both Paterno and Spanier, instead of the safety and welfare of the young boys who were being molested by a pedophile on school grounds (Almansour & Neal, 2015).
Germann (1977) raised significant concerns regarding effective criminal justice leadership. The Census Bureau reported that there were 39.6 million serious crimes in 1974. From these serious crimes, only about 2 million were solved—that equated to a clearance rate of 5.2%. Germann was outraged that law enforcement officials were embracing the same old concepts even though the evidence showed they were not working. This was attributed to leadership inaction and a failure to think outside of the box.
Early on, criminal justice institutions and officials experimented with new concepts for mere survival. However, the status quo leadership replaced experimental and innovative leadership. A lack of initiative and experience permeated law enforcement leadership. Germann pointed out that inept and mediocre leaders shun talented, educated, and decisive leaders. Inaction can result when there is an air of uncertainty or unknown. However, future leaders must prepare themselves through training and research to take decisive actions to avoid falling into the leadership inaction trap.
Conclusion Leadership inaction is a dangerous precedent to set for any organization, especially for those in law enforcement. To be effective, law enforcement leadership needs to exhibit such traits as ethics, trustworthiness, legitimacy, role modeling, ability to communicate, difficult decision-making skills, and creative and strategic thinking.
Dallas Police Chief Brown personified difficult decision-making skills when the Dallas sniper was cornered in a parking garage. A decision of inaction by Chief Brown could have resulted in the killing and wounding of more police officers. However, the chief was not afraid to give the green light for an untested concept to be used by his law enforcement agency for the very first time.
Passive leadership is riddled with inaction. Such was the case when young boys were sexually molested on the grounds of Penn State University. The head coach and school president decided that the school’s reputation was more important than the safety and welfare of the young boys. Both men lost their jobs, millions of dollars were paid to the victims, and the school’s reputation is forever tarnished because of leadership inaction.
Leaders can avoid falling prey to inaction by developing effective leadership traits. By studying leadership failures, invaluable lessons can be learned to avoid similar mistakes. Training and research can prepare new leaders to be decisive when faced with uncertainty and the unknown. Leadership inaction has no place in law enforcement agencies.
References
Almansour, M. K. & Neal, J. R. (2015). Toxic leadership in organizations. Conflict Resolution & Negotiation Journal, 2015(1), 93–100.
Germann, A. C. (1977). Criminal justice leadership: Bankrupt forever? Criminology, 15(1), 3–6.
Harold, C. M. & Holtz, B. C. (2015). The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 16–38. doi: 10.1002/job.1926
Pearson-Goff, M. & Herrington, V. (2014). Police leadership: A systematic review of the literature. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 8(1), 14–26.
Sidner, S. & Simon, M. (2016). How robot, explosives took out Dallas sniper in unprecedented way. CNN. Retrieved from www.cnn.com/2016/07/12/us/dallas-police-robot-c4-explosives/index.html
Lieutenant Ezzard C. (EC) Luke is the Security and Administrative Services (SAS) Lieutenant at the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO), Sheriff Al Cannon Detention Center in North Charleston, South Carolina. He served in the U.S. Air Force for 26 1/2 years. He has been employed with the CCSO for 14 years. He has an associate’s degree in security administration from the Community College of the Air Force, a bachelor’s degree (Magna Cum Laude) and a master’s degree in criminal justice from Saint Leo University. He is an AJA Life Member, Certified Jail Manager, and National Jail Leadership Command Academy graduate. He can be contacted at eluke@charlestoncounty.org.