LE 200: LEADERSHIP IN LAW ENFORCEMENT Topic One: The Concept of Law Enforcement from a Leadership perspective Law Enforcement

1. 2. Leadership 3. Justification from Philosophical traditions

Lecture 1: Law Enforcement and its Dimensions

What is law enforcement? Is a broad range of public and private mechanisms that are used by the society to enforce the laws. It is not a legal function, but rather is an aspect in the implementation of the law. The law enforcement aspect is crucial for the lawyers since most of the lawyers take laws as supreme principles which are to be abided to by all the members of the society. On the side of administration (execution and implementation) of the law, scholars believe that making the people abide by law needs legal experts to go an extra mail and think about the stage of implementing the law. Implementation of the law determines effectiveness of the legal system, but it is itself a tactical art like the art of politics. Like the way politics work, successful implementation of the law means using both overt and covert (active and passive) powers to influence the people to believe that they are not just obliged to respecting the law, but also it is a good thing and it expresses a sense of being part of the society of which the law is designed to protect. Different Dimensions of Law Enforcement Private enforcement versus public enforcement dimension Under private enforcement, the law is enforced by the private individual actors (simply because) that actor wants to overcome the harm caused by the law violators upon him, his property, or social welfare. Public law enforcement refers to enforcement of the law by actors who are publicly entrusted with the function of enforcing the law in society such as policy, regulators, and criminal investigation bureaus. Public enforcers are always incentivised by the government to enforce law since the government is entrusted with collective execution of the law. The Stage of Intervention Dimension This is concerned with at which stage the law is being enforced. In this respect, there are three types of law enforcement. However, there is no clear cut distinction between the three types.
1

Prospective enforcement: This is intervention that occurs when the act that is centrally to the law has happened. The law can be enforced before it is violated, basically to prevent violation of the law (inspection, investigation, control of armament, police order the organized students demonstration to disperse, placing the auxiliary police at the entrance gate, denial of license for a company that does not qualify to supply food staffs, the auxiliary police requires students to seek gate pass permit). In most cases it is common in criminal law. Introspective Enforcement: This is a typically meditative intervention in law enforcement that aims to prevent the unlawful act from happening. It presupposes physical control of the action that is harmful. In most cases force, or something close to it is used. Examples include snaking a gun from a father intends to shoot his son because he is a thief, stopping and inspecting a student without gate pass on the exit gate, TFDA rocks a hospital that does not qualify. In most cases this is done by public actors, though in rare cases can be done by private actors. Retrospective Enforcement: this is an intervention that occurs when the act has committed. Such interventions are in most cases in form of act-based sanctions. For example, the rapist is sentenced 30 years imprisonment, a student who did was charged of examinations irregularities is suspended from studies, a taxi driver is fined 20,000 Tshs for using the service road. The form of Sanctions Dimension Monetary Intervention It is basically a monetary function (fine). Fine is imposed on the person(s) who goes against the law not due to the fact that he/she has got a lot of money. It is basically due to the assumption that man would choose to lose most of the property other than life, but not money. For example, a friend would buy wine costing 50,000Tshs for you, but not offering 10,000 in cash. Traditionally, a fine was not a punishment, but rather a way of collecting peoples behavior. Today, the fining system is widely used for non criminal offenses mostly due to its cost on the side of law enforcers compared to other methods of law enforcement. Non-monetary intervention This is a form of legal sanctions in which a person or persons who violate the law is sanctioned through other mechanisms than paying fine. These include imprisonment, death penalty, and probationary restraint on conduct.

Lecture 2: Leadership and Leaders Functions What is Leadership? Who is a leader? It must be noted that leadership is a process rather than a position. Scholars believe that leadership is best understood when it is compared with management. To lead is to set a new direction, to show the way for others to follow. A leader must be able to exercise positive influence of the thoughts and actions of other people. A leader must initiate new actions and also make people go through those actions. Despite both leadership and management entails dealing with people, leading is not about determining the available way for the people to pass, but rather identifying the way for people to pass. However, leadership has components of management in it since creating identifying setting the vision does not exclude showing the vision. While managers do things right, leaders do right things. While management is about controlling people, leadership is about winning people and influencing them to do what one believes is right. While leaders set new visions and direction for groups, managers direct, control in relation to the established set of principles. Leadership is potentially a property of an individual (including his traits, behavior, and personality) while management goes with a position. Senge (1990) defines leadership as a process that involves interactions and relationship between people. Thus, we cannot have a leader when there is no a follower (while a manager can manage process) e.g. credit managers in banks. Different dimensions of law enforcement emphasize different tools for effective enforcement of the law. Some of the dimensions put much emphasis on the leadership component while other underplays the whole idea of leadership. For example, in the private-public enforcement dimension, the private enforcement part emphasizes leadership while the public enforcement part does not encourage leadership. Types of Leaders No clear formal way of classifying leaders. They may come in all shapes and all sizes. Charismatic leaders Traditional Leaders Situational leaders Transformational leaders Transactional leader Appointed leaders Elected leaders
3

 Functional leaders Autocratic leaders Democratic leader

Topic Two: Theories of Leadership and their Relationship with Law Enforcement

Lecture 3: Theories of Leadership

A theory, as a simplified set of assumptions and conclusions that offer explanation for the complex social reality. As a Kaleidoscope, a theory offers lenses for scholars to look at and explain the complex social reality. Leadership theories attempt to answer several questions; some of them are; 1. Who is a leader? 2. What distinguishes a leader from other people (not leaders) 3. Who is an effective leader? 4. What is the nature of relationship between the leader and the followers? 5. How does the nature of relationship between leaders and followers affect leaders behavior? Trait Theories Trait theories assume that there are different traits, which determine effectiveness of leaders. These traits include physiological (appearance, height, and weight), demographic (age, education and socioeconomic background), personality, self-confidence, and aggressiveness), intellective (intelligence, decisiveness, judgment, and knowledge), task-related (achievement drive, initiative, and persistence), and social characteristics (sociability and
4

cooperativeness). Such traits can determine both emergence and effectiveness of leaders in society. Among the core traits identified by trait theorists are: A popular trait theory is the Great man theory, which believes that leaders are distinguished from other people since they have certain traits. The great man theory assumes that the leaders are born and not made and posses certain traits which were inherited. The theory also assumes that great leaders can arise when there is a great need). These traits are innate in them (including personality, courage, charisma, vision, fortune) that distinguish them from common people. The theory suggests that individuals can be trained and tested to identify if they possess those competences that make them great men (leaders). The great man theory of leadership states that some people are born with the necessary attributes that set them apart from others and that these traits are responsible for their assuming positions of power and authority. A leader is a hero who accomplishes goals against all odds for his followers. The theory implies that those in power deserve to be there because of their special endowment. Furthermore, the theory contends that these traits remain stable over time and across different groups. Thus, it suggests that all great leaders share these characteristic regardless of when and where they lived or the precise role in the history they fulfilled. One of the earliest proponents, Thomas Carlyle noted; the history of the world is but the biography of great men. According to him, a leader is the one gifted with unique qualities that capture the imagination of the masses. The traits that make leaders different from other people are; Achievement drive: High level of effort, high levels of ambition, energy and initiative Leadership motivation: an intense desire to lead others to reach shared goals Honesty and integrity: trustworthy, reliable, and open Self-confidence: Belief in ones self, ideas, and ability Cognitive ability: Capable of exercising good judgment, strong analytical abilities, and conceptually skilled Knowledge of business: Knowledge of industry and other technical matters Emotional Maturity: well adjusted, does not suffer from severe psychological disorders. Others: charisma, creativity and flexibility Behavioral Theory Behavior theory focuses on what an effective leader does. The theory believes that leadership is not something that people are born with, nor do they need a set
5

of commonly accepted traits. However, effectiveness of leadership is dependent on possession of the right behavior. Researchers proposed that for a leader to be effective, their behavior must vary with the situation. In other words, you can learn how to act like a leader in a given situation. Behavior theories are based on categories of behavior and leadership types. The theory believes that outward behavior (which can generally be learnt) is enough to establish leadership. Two main studies identified the core sets of behavior that two types of leaders need to posses. Ohio State University (1940s) Task Oriented Leaders: task oriented leaders would have concern with motivation, but their concern is mainly manipulating the structure (operational rules to achieve higher production). Initiating Organizing Clarifying Information Gathering People Oriented Leaders: The people oriented leaders behavior focus on ensuring that the inner needs of the people are satisfied. Thus, their behavior are inclined towards achieving tasks through motivating the people. Therefore; they emphasize: Encouraging Observing Listening Coaching and Mentoring In the 1970s, research found most of the Behavior theory research to be invalid (Howell and Costley, 2001; Yaverbaum and Sherman, 2008); however, leadership behavior is still frequently discussed.

READ INTROD TO LEA IN LEINF

Lecture 5: Theories of Leadership Group and Exchange theory The group and exchange theories of leadership are not concerned with behavioral or trait qualities of leaders. A typical group and exchange theory, the LeaderMember Exchange theory (LMX) looks at leadership as a process that is concerned with interaction and exchange of relationship between the leader and followers (not styles, skills, context, and traits). The theory suggests that the leader relates with each of the followers. However, the nature of relationship between the leader and followers is dyadic. The leader does not treat all the followers equally. Some of the followers are in the inner-group while others are in the out-group. The followers who are in the inner-group have closer linkages with the leader, their relationship is informal, negotiated, and they perform extra roles. Their relationship with a leader is marked by mutual trust, respect, liking, and mutual influence. Those in the outgroup maintain formal, prescribed, role based, and contractual relationship with the leader. Figure 1: Dyadic Relationship between a leader and followers

According to the theory, the effective leader should develop quality relationships with all members that make everyone feel like they are in the in-group. The process of developing high-quality exchange relationship involves three major phases overtime (leadership making). Phase 1: Stranger Phase 2: Acquaintance Phase 3: Mature Partner Fig 2. 2. Phases in Leadership Making

Source: Graen and Bien (1995) At each of the phases, relationship in the leader-follower dyad tends to improve (increase in trust, respect, obligation, and reciprocity). In the theory, a leader continuously builds relationship with all members, encourages them, nurtures them, and concentrates on building positive relationship, respect, and trust to achieve the highest possible positive level of exchange of relationship with all members (followers). The theory encourages communication as a central way of achieving goals and is widely applied in different organizational settings. However, it has been criticized for encouraging favoritism. The theory leaves many questions unanswered, e.g. how to create high quality leader member relationship? How to build respect, trust etc. How can the levels of leadermember relationship be measured?

Lecture 6: Leadership theories Continue

McGregor Theory X and Y McGregor developed a simplified theory based on the beliefs of the managers/leaders towards an individual human being (worker/subordinate). The assumptions of the two theories are as follows. Table 2.1. Assumptions about Human Nature that Underlie McGregors Theory X and Theory Y

The way a leader will treat people depends on the theory type that leader (manager) is. A leader/manager that is dominantly theory X type will be control
9

oriented, and will have little time to cooperate with his people. In case of law, s/he would dominantly believe that the average person cannot participate in enforcing the law and will always be against the law. A manager/leader who is dominantly theory Y type will always believe that the subordinates/followers have a sense of responsibility; they need little control and therefore will encouraged cooperation. In law enforcement, theory X agrees much with public law enforcement approaches while theory Y agrees with private law enforcement approaches. Transactional Leadership Theory Transactional leadership theory focuses primarily on performance. The theory requires that the leader and follower agree to a contract. The follower is responsible for following orders to perform a task. The leader, in turn, gives rewards for following orders in completing the task. Transactional leadership suggests that people only complete tasks when there are external rewards. However, many people accomplish tasks and reach goals because of their own internal motivation. Figure 2.3: Day-to-day Leader-follower relationship in task accomplishment [L=Leader, F=Follower]

45 Leaders who act guided by the transactional theory (transactional leaders) will constantly emphasize on the procedures, laws, and orders (eg the police general orders), which they assume that if they are well followed the followers would accomplish their tasks and receive rewards that they deserve. When it comes to law enforcement, this theory sits well with the public law enforcement approach.

10

Lecture 7: Theories of Leadership

Transformational Leadership Theory Transformational leadership theory looks at leadership as a process that is PRIMARILY concerned with creating a change. A leader must be fully committed to the transformation and the commitment must be visible to organizational members and external stakeholders. The theory believes that successful leaders always engage others, build trust, and create a connection that increases the motivation and morality in both the leader and the followers. A transformational leader focuses on others and their needs in order to help them reach their potential. In many ways, transformational leadership is about a leaders ability to create a vision related to a goal that has meaning for both the leader and follower. The theory contends that a transformational leader articulates the vision in a clear and appealing manner, explains how to attain the vision, acts confidently and optimistically, expresses confidence in his followers, emphasizes values with symbolic actions, leads by example, and empowers followers to achieve the vision. Moreover, through the influence of a leaders values, transformational leadership requires the leader to balance multiple constituency needs along with individual and organizational values and beliefs Figure 2.4: A model for transformational leadership process

11

In that case, the theory suggests that a transformational leader must possess attributes that strike a balance between individual considerations and organizational values. The attributes are listed in table 2.2. Table 2.2: Transformational Leadership Attributes

Contingency Theory The contingency theory is based on the assumption that there is neither one way of leading or set of traits or behavior that are needed for all leaders, in all places, at all times. In a more progressive approach to leadership, the contingency theory recommends matching a leaders style to the right situation, which involves matching to the team of people and goals. Two common Contingency theories are Path-Goal theory and Situational theory. Path-Goal Theory: proposes that effective leaders help followers reach goals through motivation by involving them in fulfilling and meaningful tasks that match their ability. The leader provides coaching, direction, motivation and rewards for the followers. Situational Theory recommends that different situations call for different kinds of leadership. This calls for the leader to change their style to match the situation and the abilities of their followers. Given the nature of law enforcement function, the theory suggests that law enforcement leaders should learn what could best motivate different constituencies to play their proper role in enforcing the law. The theory suggest that law enforcement leaders supervisory and control effort demands are affected by different factors. For instance, the maturity of followers affect the way leaders behave in terms of both relationship behavior and task related behavior. Figure 2.5: shows the effect of followers maturity on leaders behavior
12

Figure 2.5: Effect of Followers Maturity on Leaders Behavior

Other factors may be Level of education Prevailing situation /peace or lack of peace Topic Three: The Relevance of leadership in Law Enforcement Philosophical Justification of Leadership in Law Enforcement Unlike other functions of the government, law enforcement does not have a solid philosophical basis. There are no philosophers who can be identified as having full-fledged sets of philosophical ideas on law enforcement, but some ideas are borrowed from the writings of philosophers who contemplated about different aspects related to politics, government, and law including Aristotle, John Locke, Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, etc. Machiavelli, (1439-1527) in The Prince In his philosophy, human nature determines the approach to law enforcement. characterized man as by nature selfish, wicked, deceitful, greedy, self-interested, profit driven, and concerned with himself compared to others. Machiavelli argues that man is usually content and happy so long as he is not victim of some terrible occurrence or set of negative circumstances. However, the state of nature is characterized by negative circumstances (murder, destruction, and violence). So as to be safe, content, and happy man wanted to live out of the state of nature by submitting to the sovereign, the Prince who is by necessity, a member of an established and influential family, a man with long blood-lines to other rulers who, by nature of his heredity, has less cause to offend others and thus rules effectively through his urbane nature. (Chap II, pp.8)
13

Machiavelli Advocated for a strong totalitarian government that is led by an absolute monarchy. For him, an absolute monarch (who is also a native) would provide collective execution of the law while subjecting private interests over private interests. He thought that an individual (or aliens and firms) is by nature against the law and would not respect the law voluntarily or even cooperate in the enforcement of law. Thus, the prince has to maintain a strong military force that can help him to execute the law for common good (not civilian police). For Machiavelli, if the individuals are given chance would revolt the prince (who is there for collective protection). For him, only the prince would provide viable framework for collective protection and eliminate all forms of suffering (of the state of nature). Those who have borrowed Machiavellis philosophy support the use of militaristic policing approach, mainly the police that is directly owned and controlled by the state (or paramilitary institutions of law enforcement). Even in the current context, neo-Machiavellians do not believe in private law enforcement. They would rather require that the government have in place strong public institutions of law enforcement (which have no link with the community).
Thomas Hobbes (15881679), in Leviathan

Hobbes characterized human beings as by nature brutish, war-like, nasty, and self interested. Man in the state of nature was like a beast. The state of nature was thus a state of war of every man against every man. Consequently, life was "solitary, poorer, nasty, brutish, and short". Such a state of constant wars among individual limits social developments and common wealth. Thus, people sought to create a society in which natural rights of the people are protected and all persons ought to seek peace. This society has to be ruled by a strong absolute monarch who executes and protects the law on behalf of all the people. Only the sovereign, on behalf of all knows how best the law can be collectively safeguarded. Hobbes believed that the role of citizens is just to respect the law that has been agreed upon between the sovereign and them. In turn, the role of the sovereign is to safeguard the rights of those who respect the rights of the others. Thus, once the public has authorized the sovereign to pass the law, they have no right to challenge the law at the stage of enforcement. The law cannot be challenged or corrected on the course of implementing it. The police for instance which is in most cases entrusted with law enforcement is taken as the institution that is highly capable of determining what is right or wrong in the face of the law (just think of the police officer asking you, unanifundisha kazi?). The assumption here is that; the police is working as a as a public agency that has received both discipline and procedure from the state (not part of the state). Thus, it works best due possession of procedural and professional knowledge that is related to law enforcement aspects (such as criminal detection,
14

investigation, and others). With this assumption, Hobbes is quoted saying that the sovereign knows what is best for his people and it is his will that defines evil and good for his subject. (If you shut up and do as you are told, you have the right not to be killed, and you do not even have the right not to be killed, for no matter what the Sovereign does, and what he does doesnt constitute violation of contract). However, unlike Machiavelli, Hobbes was not interested in fusion between the state and law enforcement institutions. Apart from being strong, the sovereign has to govern populace. Therefore, for him, law enforcement institutions, which also included the judiciary, should not be part of the state. In other words, Hobbes philosophy of law enforcement was moderate and tries to balance between private and public enforcement. The best thing is that, like John Locke, Hobbes believed that the government that governs populace should encourage both making law enforcement effective and legitimacy of the law (to the people) the two are important for successful law enforcement. Jon Locke Jon Lockes ides that are associated with law enforcement are in most cases are drawn from "The Second Treatise of Government". Locke believed that, man is by nature a social animal, cooperative, and likes peace. Man in the state of nature was happy, free and enjoyed natural rights (which are naturally given to all human beings-by God who is above them (p.70). The state of nature was governed by the natural law, which was not written, but obliges and teaches everyone to consult it and love all human beings. Thus, in the state of nature, men mostly kept their promises and honored their obligations, and, though insecure, it was mostly peaceful, good, and pleasant. The weakness of the law of nature was that; there was nobody to provide collective protection of the natural law. Due to lack of collective protection of common law, the people contracted the civil government of which the role is to provide collective protection of natural law. However, if the civil government fails to fulfill its role, the people have powers to However, In the context of law enforcement, the ideas of john Locke suggest several issues. First, the need for collective law execution arises from the people and the function of the state is limited to ensuring that the rights and freedoms of an individual are protected. Equally, John Lock suggests that law enforcement actors should not strictly controlled by the state. As the state has minimal control over the individual, the individuals can rightly determine which law facilitates their perfect enjoyment of natural rights (provided that they do not go against the law)

15

Generally, there are two major philosophies that guide the designing of law enforcement institutions; (a) The Military Philosophy This is based on the assumption that law enforcement is a special function (that cannot be performed by an ordinary person). The military philosophy of law enforcement holds that only people who have heroic vision can enforce law. This is basically because law enforcement scenarios are wars on crime. Therefore, the philosophy emphasizes a command based structure that facilitate centralized control of subordinates (who are regarded as mindless and automatically conditioned to shoot first and ask questions later) This philosophy rejects the use of decisions based on practical experiences and practical leadership development techniques (eg effective communication). The philosophies take law enforcement in the area of criminology as a practical war on crime , which in turn justifies the top-down-command and control styles as essential for both crime control and suppression. Generally, when this philosophies guide design of police fosters aggressive and confrontational behavior by police officers towards the public. GENERALLY, the military philosophy of law enforcement is not leadership oriented and seeks to achieve peace and order through scaring lawbreakers. However, it is sometimes useful and even civilian polices tend to revert to it in where suppression has to be used.

(b) The Community Oriented philosophies Subscribers to these philosophies believe that the military oriented philosophies are not suitable for effective law enforcement. The purpose of law is to The attitude of an individual towards the law Lawbreakers are part of the community as those whim the law is designed to protect. Therefore, effective law enforcement requires participation Just need to be led LECTURE: IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP IN LAW ENFORCEMENT There is little consensus among scholars regarding the extent to which leadership is an important factor in law enforcement. Some scholars have questioned on the validity of the argument that leadership is important for all forms of social organization (from family, community, civil society, business, to state level). However, some scholars believe that leadership is an important and integral part of any form of effective socially organized collective action. Thus, arguing that law enforcement does not require leadership is just like denying the truth that
16

only human beings exist since there is law and law exists since there are human beings. The Governance Paradigm Argument: Leadership constitutes an integral part of law enforcement, especially today where participatory models of governance have become dominant. Under the governance approach, law enforcement is regarded to be incomplete if elements in society are not working together to achieve progressive and sustainable law enforcement. Sustainable law enforcement approach requires that the enforcement of law should aim to achieve peace and order for the development of the present and future generations. In this way, enforcing law means seeking to achieve sustainable change in behavior. Changing behavior requires tactics that yield acceptability, influence, and setting shared mission, which are indeed important leadership tactics. Therefore, effective law enforcement needs to change the individual from being a subordinate of order seeking into a superordinate in the law enforcement position. It seeks to create deeper interest of members of communities to participate in the law enforcement and reduce dependence on formal institutions like the police to independence (including social militia and community based enforcement mechanisms. The Comprehensive Approach Argument: That Law enforcement is a totality of efforts that have to focus on all the three stages; prevention enforcement, intervention enforcement, and suppression enforcement. Law enforcement can only neglect the leadership tactics and skills at the stage of suppression, (which is indeed too late if law enforcement has to be cost effective). Prevention and intervention measures in law enforcement require cooperative efforts between the leaders of formal law enforcement and their followers (on one hand) and law enforcers and the members of communities. A good example is on control of drugs, traffic laws enforcement, etc. A ready, cooperative, and understanding community/individual becomes an effective partner in both investigating and reporting incidents of law enforcement. Effective law enforcement does not just mean having sanctions, but rather educating the people on the essence of the law and making them part of the law enforcement. Leadership component bridges the gap between private and public low enforcement approaches, thus the weakness of either are minimized.

Leadership is important in Law Enforcement since it helps to;

17

 Create shared vision between the community (law owner) and the frontiers of law enforcement (e.g. the police). When the community and law enforcers have a shared end regarding both the role of law, the community plays an important part in law enforcement. Leadership makes visional people fulfill their role in communities. Through leadership skills, leaders build inspirations of followers and influence them to concentrate their efforts towards reaching common good Community oriented theories of law enforcement argue that. Regardless of whether law enforcement institutions stretch to communities, all organized communities have ends, which they exist to achieve. If this is a case, leadership is a supreme end. In addition, leadership is regarded to be an important motivating factor that motivates a wide range of stakeholders compared to other motivators including monetary compensation to law enforcers. They thus argue that the LEIs have a crucial concern of finding and cultivating leaders (through recruiting ethical enforcers and training LEIs leaders and followers) Leadership is closely linked with being ethical and integrating others in acceptable code of behavior. Believers in this line of thinking argue that the leadership component builds foundation upon which effective law enforcement stands. Conclusion: Leadership is becoming an important component/value in law enforcement. Even scholars who are conservative are bowing to this position not because they do not have a theoretical basis to justify their claims, but rather the prevailing socio-economic conditions that affect institutions of modern states without exception. As Gonzalez (2000) argues, leadership in this context should not be taken as just assuming a position (or title), but rather the process of exercising leadership skills and qualities and getting followers. He specifically states; Any reasonably intelligent person with enough forcefulness to develop his ability to inspire others to follow him can earn leadership status. He may never be recognized on the organization charts, he may never be awarded stripes or bars, but he nevertheless is a leader if others are desirous of following him. The true leader, the ideal for the organization, is the leader recognized as such formally and granted leadership authority not only by his organization but also by his subordinates. The grant of authority by the latter is the only real source of authority."(Page 14)
18

LECTURE: THE NEED FOR STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP In the last lecture, we concluded that leadership is generally needed for effective law enforcement. However, a new question that is unanswered remains; what kind of leadership is needed? Before responding to the question, those who pose such a question create two-twin question. These are; When? And Where? If the responses are; Today and in modern states, then the answer is becomes simple; Strategic Leadership However, some illusive questions are; what is strategic about strategic leadership? Does strategic leadership add anything new to the law enforcement function? Dont we have any other options than strategic leadership? The answer becomes; if everything of the modern world is required to be strategic-planning, management, marketing, and the alike; then adding the pre-modifier strategic before the concept leadership is not a sin. The important question to answer is whether strategic leadership is needed for effective law enforcement (or not)? What is strategic Leadership? LECTURE: KEY LEADERSHIP SKILLS FOR LAW ENFORCERS Ethical Decision Making Skills Effective Communication Skills Team Building and motivating Conflicts Resolution Skills Goal Setting (and achieving) Problems Solving Skills Effective Delegation Skills Topic Four: Leadership Ethics and Law Enforcement An ethical conduct is the one that is accepted to be right by the society. However, there is a debate of what may be ethical Being ethical versus being legal The role of ethical law enforcement leader if to influence the society to believe that what is legal is publicly ethical. It is negotiating leadership ethics versus societal values and norms. A researcher argued that principled leaders do not act to protect their egos, or intimidate those under them, but rather to display good appearance to those under them by doing what they expect of them and teaching them doing good that they do not know. It is not necessary that the leaders in law enforcement are unethical while the society members are ethically clean. Whereas the most viral unethical behavior is
19

corruption, researchers have found that the public may be interested in corruption compared to the law enforcers. Corruption is not only a problem since it constrains attainment of rights, but also is an obstacle to successful law enforcement Unethical behavior undermine the overall legitimacy of law enforcement To comprehend what is ethics in law enforcement, the concept of integrity is important. Integrity refers to the sum virtues required to bring about the general goals of protection and service to the public. An ethical law enforcer must possess these components of integrity Prudence: the ability of a law enforcer to discern between conflicting virtues and take the best option Trust: Refers to the loyalty and trustfulness in relationships between officers and citizens, fellow officers, and supervisors. Effacement of self-interest: means that officers should not exploit their authority to further themselves Courage: the mean between cowardice and foolhardness Intellectual honesty: not knowing something and being humble and courageous enough to admit it Justice: not in its normal context, but rather, adjusting what is owed to a particular citizen even when it may contradict what is strictly owed. Responsibility: intenting to do the right thing clearly understanding what the right thing is, and being fully aware of other alternatives that may exist, taking responsibility, rather than finding excuses for mistakes or poor judgment.

Importance of Ethics The sole aim of law enforcement is not creating the fear of punishment, but rather to change the behavior. Moral makeup requires that law enforcers, if they cannot identify the offender, they can identify him the other day, but very important is that; the law enforcer have a role to of building a shared meaning between them and the society that the society that the law offender is a bad guy Policing requires perfection and unyielding ethics and ultimately depends on each employees own level of knowledge, rationality, and devotion to moral excellence. There is a need for a policy spelling out moral ethical mission standards for law enforcement authorities. Hiring ethical people.

20