Leadership/ Management

LEADERSHIP/ MANAGEMENT 13

Leadership/Management

Leadership/Management

PartA

ImplementationTeam

GroupGoals and Objectives

Thegroup was formed to take over a police detachment from the RCMP. Theteam operated under the Dakota Ojibway Police Service (DOPS). Itsmain was to maintain law and order in the region. The team wascharged with carrying out the mandate of the police detachment thatwas operating under RCMP. The formation of the team was aimed atimproving effectiveness and efficiency in terms of maintaining lawand order. The goals and objectives were developed after a carefulconsideration of what DOPS stands for. Different stakeholders wereinvolved in the development of the objectives. The team was made of anumber of members including an Inspector from DOPS, Chief of PoliceDOPS, CPL RCMP, and Senior Sergeant RCMP. Personally, I was thesergeant. It was upon the team to ensure that the police detachmentplayed its roles and objectives in the desired manner.

Iplayed a number of roles in the team. For one, I was in charge ofpicking staff members who would implement the goals and objectives ofthe team to ensure it implements its mandate. Equally, I was chargedwith ordering supplies and equipment. Basically, I ensured that theteam had everything it needed to accomplish its roles and tasks.Similarly, I also identified staff members who were allocated todifferent roles and duties. Essentially, I allocated different rolesand duties to different members of the team. Every staff member wasexpected to accomplish their tasks without failure.

Myrole was very important to the success of the team. For one, the teamrequired staff to achieve its goals and objectives. As such, it wasimportant that I pick staff members with the required skills andknowledge to execute their roles and duties in the desired manner.Equally, the team could not achieve its goals without supplies andequipment. As such, ordering supplies was equally important. In thesame regard, it was very important for every staff member to beallocated to different roles. This is the only way they couldcontribute to the success of the team. Role allocation plays a majorrole in dealing with confusion and anxiety among members of a team.

TeamDevelopment

Theteam went through the Tuckman’s four stage model of teamdevelopment. Specifically, it went through the forming, storming,norming, and performing stages. The forming stage is normallycharacterized by members of a team relying more on their leader forguidance(Halverson &amp Tirmizi, 2008).I played a major role at this stage. For instance, this is a stagethat is characterized by roles being unclear to members. At thispoint, I had to start allocated duties to different staff that I hadchosen. Members ignored processes as some of them were unclear.Leader and system tolerance was also tested at this stage. There wasa bit of confusion among members as they were trying to contemplateon the way forward.

Thesecond stage was the storming. The positions of every member weremade clear. As mentioned earlier, different ranking police officerswere part of the team. As such, those in high ranks became theleaders while others followed. At this stage, leaders engaged inclarifying the purpose of the team. However, uncertainty persisted asmany members were still unclear on the role they were to play. In thesame regard, leaders also ensured that every member was focused tothe goals and objectives of the team. There was some level ofcompromise. However, members were also expected to obey orderswithout questioning. Some level of couching also come in handy inensuring members was able to execute their roles and duties withease. Leaders were more than willing to help other members of theteam to understand their roles and executing them accordingly.

Likewise,the team also went through the norming stage. At this point, a largepercentage of the members of the team if not all members were inconsensus on the way forward. Many members had, for example, acceptedthe roles I allocated to them and were willing to execute the same.Decisions relating to what the team requires to accomplish its goalsand objectives were also made. For instance, the team made decisionson the resources it required to implement its objectives. This gaveme the opportunity to order the same to ensure everything was up andrunning. The team had also achieved unity and trust. People respectedone another willingly without the use of force which is normally theorder of the day with police departments. Personally, I felt juniormembers respected me and were willing to work with me to achieve theteam’s goals. Every leader in different capacities was committed totheir mandate.

Thelast stage in the team development process was the performing stage.This is a stage that involves the team executing its roles and dutiesto ensure the achievement of its goals and objectives. Every memberof the team had a shared vision. All uncertainties were removed. Theteam was also characterized by high levels of autonomy. Everyindividual was working towards the achievement of team’s goals.Members were also committed to meeting one another’s interests.Different roles were delegated to different members. The team membersrequired instructions on how to deal with their duties. However, theywere able to deal with the instructions without the aid of theirleaders. Personally, I dealt with my roles with ease as I was clearon what was expected of me at all times.

Teamand Individual Motivation

Leadersin the team applied a number of strategies to ensure high levels ofmotivation members. For one, they ensured instructions were clear andthat everyone understood the roles they were to play. According toGagne(2014), lackof understanding in regards to the roles team members have to playcontribute a lot to low levels of motivation as it leads confusionand frustration. Basically, members may not understand what isexpected of them hence find it hard to play their roles. As a leaderI ensured that roles were communicated to staff in advance.

Inthe same regard, the team was given the resources it required toexecute its roles. Lack of resources can create a barrier to theachievement of objectives. Clark(2007)argues that lack of resources can be stressing to a team and has beenranked among the major causes of team failure. I was in charge ofordering supplies. I always made sure that the resources andequipment were made available in a timely manner without failure. Every team member was given the resources they required to executetheir roles in the desired manner. I also always made sure that Imade a follow up to ascertain on whether or not the resources werefunctioning in the desired manner.

Communicationalso played a major role in motivating members. In line withScannelland Scannell (2010), lackof effective communication contributes a lot to poor levels ofmotivation in a team. For example, it is essential for the teammembers to be in picture of what is happening around them. Anyfeeling that they are being left out or in darkness can impact onmotivation in negative manner. Lack of communication can also lead tomembers failing to understand what is expected of them(Newton, 2011).Generally, members knew almost everything that was happening aroundthem. Police officers cannot execute their roles without effectivecommunication. This can be attributed to the fact that they alwaysrely on information to handle their tasks. It is also essential thatthey are updated on any developments in a timely manner. My team wasnot any different.

Likewise,relationships were also used to ensure motivation. This went a longway in ensuring individual motivation. Leaders tried their best toensure members developed personal relationships. This helped in thedevelopment of trust and commitment to the goals and objectives ofthe team. Similarly, ethical practices were also applied to motivatemembers. Specifically, every individual was treated equally. Those inhigher ranks may have received preferential treatment. However, theteam leaders were careful not to affect team cohesion when givingthose in high ranks better treatment.

Theleaders ensured that member understood the fact that they werecontributing to the greater good. This also helped in ensuringindividual motivation. Mackay(2010) debatesthat people are normally motivated to work hard or behavior in acertain manner when they understand the end results and theirbenefits. Basically, explaining the benefits enables the members tounderstand exactly what the team intends to achieve and how they willpersonally benefit from it(Srinath, 2009).

Memberswere encouraged to raise their concerns at all times especially whenthe matter at hand affected their ability to execute their roles andduties. According to Srinath(2009), notallowing members to raise their concerns can create a barrier tomotivation. This can be attributed to the fact that members may havea pressing matter that may affect their ability to deal with theirroles but fail to report the same. As such, they may suffer insilence. As a result, their general level of performance is affectedin a negative manner(Mackay, 2010).

Legislationsalso come in handy when motivating members of the team. As a policeofficer, one is expected by the law to maintain law and order withoutfailure. Basically, this is the job of a police officer. As such,individuals were motivated to accomplish their tasks knowing thatthey were carrying out their obligation under the law. Basically, theknowledge that they were carrying out their legislative mandate byexecuting their roles and duties were motivational enough.

AddressingIndividual Performances

Asmentioned above, every member of the team has a role to play in theachievement of the goals and objectives. The roles were to beexecuted without failure. Police officers are expected to executetheir roles as failure to ensure the same can attract seriousdisciplinary measures. The team performance was measured to ascertainhow it faired on. Its ability to maintain law and order communicatedthe message that it was being effective. Nonetheless, individualperformance was also examined to determine best performers and poorperformers. This was done to reward those performed well. On theother hand, poor performers were either punished or encouraged towork harder in the future.

Basically,the performance of members was evaluated on a regular basis. Leaderswere expected to provide feedback in relation to their conclusion onwho were good performers and poor performers. This also aided inincreasing the level of motivation in the team. Every individual wasevaluated based on the role they played in the execution of theteam’s goals. For example, they were evaluated on the roles theywere playing in fighting crime and bringing in law offenders ormaintaining law and order. The results of a team provided informationon areas that were performing in the desired manner. In the sameregard, they also provided information on areas that requiredimprovement. As such, the team leaders were able to developstrategies on how to address the same.

PartB

Effectiveand Ineffective Supervisor

Ihave had the chance to work with different supervisors who applieddifferent leadership styles to handle staff. One supervisor appliedthe situational leadership theory. According to the theory, there isno one leadership style that can be applied in all situations.Basically, a supervisor must be able to apply different styles whenhandling different situations to achieve the best results(Newton, 2011).The supervisor applied styles such as autocratic, democratic, andservant leadership. In the end he was able to manage people in aprofessional manner achieving the best results. Fundamentally, thesupervisor analyzed the different situation he was facing beforedetermining the best style that could be applied. There were timeswhen he applied autocratic style while there were also times whenthis style was deemed ineffective. In the same regard, the supervisoralso applied democratic style especially when the decision requiredthe involvement of others.

Thesupervisor was able to handle many situations with ease. He was alsoeffective in leading people. Basically, he was open-mindedconsidering the fact that he welcomed suggestions and ideas wheneverpossible. Such supervisors enjoy high levels of trust from theirmembers. Barker(2011)argues that people derive great pleasure from being involved in thedecision making process from time to time. Supervisors who makedecisions on their own at all times without involving their followerscreate a rigid working environment(Covey, 2013).Such supervisors can receive resentment from their members.Essentially, people enjoy working with a supervisor who is open tonew ideas and new ways of doing things. Rigidity can also reduce thelevel of innovativeness among followers(Tracy, 2008). The supervisor applied democratic leadership style to ensure thegeneration of new ideas that could enable the team to achieve itsgoals and objectives. This is a strategy that paid off consideringthe fact that staff members were always more than willing to sharetheir ideas and opinions on the way forward.

Therewere a number of weaknesses that were associated with thissupervisor’s style of leadership. For one, he could consume moretime when applying the democratic leadership style as it entailedconsulting with other before making the final decision. This is oneof the main reasons to why many supervisors in the department opt notto apply such leadership style. However, the supervisor only appliedthis strategy when he was incapable of making informed decisions onhis own. Equally, he only applied the style when he had enough timeto contemplate or reach out to other supervisors or staff beforemaking the final decision. Autocratic leadership style was appliedwhen time was of the essence. Equally, the leader applied this stylewhen the decision at hand required his expertise.

Onesupervisor I found to be ineffective in leading people appliedautocratic leadership style. The supervisor applied the style at alltimes. It did not matter if he had all the facts or not. He alsoapplied the style even when he lacked the skills and knowledge tomake an informed decision. There are times when other leaders offereda helping hand in some matter. However, the supervisor did nothesitate to turn a deaf ear. Essentially, he could pretend to listenonly to do the opposite. Equally, he could also fail to listen toanyone. Basically, the leader always worked under the assumption thathe had all it takes to make all the decisions a lone without relyingon anyone. This is a common trend in many police departments. Thosein higher ranks make decisions and pass them to their juniors. Juniorofficers are expected to follow the orders or instructions withoutquestioning anything. The problem is their superiors’ judgment isnot always right(Barker, 2011).There are times when some superiors may make serious mistakes thatcan even cost lives. Applying different leadership style can aid inremedying the situation.

Usingthe same leadership style at all times can have its own strengths aswell as weakness. One of the major strengths associated with thestrategy is the fact that it enables leaders to make decisions in aquick manner. Basically, they do not have to deliberate among theirselves on the way forward. Specifically, autocratic leadership styleenables leaders to make decisions without having to consult withanyone. As such, they do not waste any time(Tracy, 2008). This is unlike the case with democratic leadership style whereleaders have consume more time including others in the decisionmaking process. In the end, the process of consulting with others maynot even yield any fruits. As a result, the leader will have wastedtime for no good reason. Autocratic leadership style is also appliedwhen a leader is more knowledgeable and skilled. Basically, I believethe supervisor worked under the assumption that he was moreknowledgeable than his subjects. As such, he did not see the need toconsult with them when making any decision (Anderson&amp Anderson, 2010).

Theapplication of autocratic leadership style only also has itsweakness. The weaknesses are the reason I branded the supervisor afailure or an ineffective leader. For one, there is no way a leadercan be able to manage all situations when applying one leadershipstyle. It is essential for one to change the style depending on whatthey may be trying to handle. A leader may be skilled. However, thereare times when the best decision can only be arrived upon whenworking with others. Basically, democratic style can always come inhandy when handling some situations(Adair, 2009).There are also other styles a leader can apply other than theautocratic style. Equally, people have the tendency to resent leadersor supervisors who apply autocratic leadership style. As such, theymay be unwilling to show total commitment to their work. This isunlike the case with democratic leadership style(Barker, 2011).

Alaw enforcement manager can be able to apply more than one leadershipstyle. As discussed above, according to the situational leadershiptheory, there is no one single leadership style that can be appliedin all situations. A law enforcement manager can analyze a situationto determine the best style that can be applied to achieve the bestresults. There are many advantages that are associated with applyingdifferent styles(Tracy, 2008).For one, the leader may be able to handle different situations withease. Equally, he or she may gain followers’ trust. This is astrategy that can enable him or her to encourage innovativeness. Onthe contrary, the application of different styles can communicate asign of weakness especially when the manager applies democratic(Adair, 2009).Fundamentally, some followers may be of the view that the leader doesnot have what it takes to lead them. As such, they may also betempted to question his or her orders. This is also one of the majorreasons that have led some law enforcement managers opting to applyautocratic style as it communicates power and authority(Parker, 2011).

References

Adair,J. ( 2009). Howto Grow Leaders : the Seven Key Principles of Effective Development.London : Kogan Page.

Anderson,D. &amp Anderson, L. A. (2010). BeyondChange Management: How to Achieve Breakthrough Results ThroughConscious Change Leadership.New York: John Wiley &amp Sons

Barker,T. E. (2011). Effectivepolice leadership : moving beyond management.Flushing, NY: Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.

Clark,D. (2007). Motivatingto win! : how to create, inspire and motivate a high performance.Liskeard : Exposure.

Covey,S. R. (2013). The7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in PersonalChange.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Gagné,M. (2014). TheOxford handbook of work engagement, motivation, andself-determination theory.Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Halverson,C. B., &amp Tirmizi, S. A. (2008). Effectivemulticultural teams : theory and practice.Dordrecht: Springer.

Mackay,A. (2010). Motivation,Ability and Confidence Building in People.New York, NY: Routledge.

Newton,R. (2011). Themanagement book.Harlow : Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Scannell,M., &amp Scannell, E. E. (2010). Thebig book of team motivating games : spirit-building, problem-solving,and communication games for every group.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Srinath,T. (2009). TeamDevelopment and Team Effectiveness A Facilitator S Handbook.New York, NY: ICFAI Books.

Tracy,B. ( 2008). Effectiveleadership.Ahmedabad : Jaico.

»