NCJ Number
190125
Journal
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Dated: July/August 2001 Pages: 341-355
Editor(s)
Kent B. Joscelyn
Date Published
August 2001
Length
15 pages
Annotation
In this study, different supervisory styles that currently exist in policing were examined.
Abstract
Many scholars across many academic disciplines have advanced theories identifying leadership styles. These theoretical approaches have been used in a variety of settings. In general, police supervision literature is limited in scope and does not answer many conceptual or empirical questions on field supervision. Broad based research is needed to understand the current style and status of police leadership and management. This study attempted to address this perceived need. First, the study described several underlying attitudinal constructs identified in management and policing literatures that were combined to create four supervisory styles for a sample of patrol supervisors in two metropolitan police departments (Indianapolis and St. Petersburg). These supervisory styles included: traditional, innovative, supportive, and active. Traditional supervisors were task-oriented, more directive in decision-making, expected measurable outcomes from subordinates and aggressive patrolling, and were resistant to community policing. Innovative supervisors were high-relations oriented, low-task oriented, had positive views of subordinates, were supportive of innovative changes, and receptive to new initiatives. Supportive supervisors were protective and supportive of subordinates. Active supervisors had high levels of perceived powers, were directive in decision-making, worked along subordinates, and had a positive view of subordinates. The supervisory styles were evenly distributed among the sample of 81 supervisors, however significant departmental differences existed. Results indicated that nearly half of the SPPD were traditional compared to 16 percent of the IPD supervisors. Also, only 12 percent of SPPD supervisors were active, compared to 29 percent from IPD. Differences also emerged when the supervisor’s sex was considered. Fifty percent of female supervisors were traditional, compared to only 22 percent of male supervisors. In addition, 8.3 percent of female supervisors were innovative compared to over 30 percent of males. One explanation for these differences was the nature of the traditional supervisory style, concerned with controlling subordinate behavior. The study established differences in supervisors’ attitudes and behaviors, but whether these differences had an influence over subordinates’ behavior on the street required exploration. Examination of the influence of particular supervisory styles on subordinates’ attitudes and behaviors was recommended. In order for police administrators to establish specific policies and procedures within their departments, they need to recognize the differences in first-line supervisors. Tables and references