Police leadership: expectations and impact

Home Office Online Report 20/04

John Dobby Jane Anscombe Rachel Tuffin

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the Home Office (nor do theyreflect Government policy).

Police leadership: expectations and impact John Dobby Jane Anscombe Rachel Tuffin Online Report 20/04

ii

Acknowledgements We should like to thank all of the police officers and police staff who gave up their time to support this research, whether by allowing themselves to be interviewed, completing questionnaires, or acting as force liaison officers and arranging the interviews and questionnaire distribution. We should also like to thank Dr Robert Adlam and Professor Beverly Alimo-Metcalfe for providing advice on the design of the project, and Professor Maureen Pope and Pam Denicolo for providing training in repertory grid technique. Finally, we should like to thank the Police Leadership Development Board and Dr Lawrence Singer at the Home Office who provided valuable support to us throughout the project.

The authors John Dobby, Jane Anscombe and Rachel Tuffin are members of the Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.

iii

Contents Acknowledgements ii Executive summary v 1. Introduction 1 Leadership, employee attitudes and customer satisfaction 1 The police service context 1 Aims and objectives 2 2. Design and methodology of the elements of the research programme 5 Design and methodology of the interview study of police officers 5

Design and methodology of the questionnaire study of police authorities 9 Design and methodology of the questionnaire study of police officers 10

and police staff 3. What is regarded as effective police leadership by police officers and 13 police authority members? Effective leadership: the police officer perspective 13 Effective leadership: the police authority perspective 15

Effective leadership: the qualities required by BCU Commanders 17 Effective leadership: comparing authority and officer perspectives 18 Effective leadership: relating the police officer perspective to 18

transformational leadership 4. What is the impact of police leadership on staff in the service? 21 5. How can police leadership improve? 25 Key findings 25 Conclusions 25 References 28 Appendices A Police leadership development 30 B The categories into which the leadership constructs elicited from police officers fell 31 C Full verbatim list of the constructs, split into positive and negative behaviours, 33 by category and target rank D Effective leadership constructs elicited from gay and lesbian police officers 60 E Answers to psychological outcome questions by rank/role of line manager 63

iv

List of tables 2.1 Numbers of officers taking part in the main repertory grid study, broken down 7 by the interviewee's rank and the rank under consideration during their interview 2.2 Numbers of officers taking part in the supplementary repertory grid study, 8 broken down by interviewee’s rank and rank considered during interview 2.3 Numbers of officers returning completed questionnaires and bio sheets, 11 broken down by their rank and by the rank/role of their line manager 2.4 Views on the relevance of the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire 12 to police leadership, broken down by rank/role (n=839) 3.1 Numbers and percentages of constructs falling in each of the four main categories 13 respectively, broken down by target rank under consideration 3.2 Numbers and percentages of constructs falling in each of the four main categories 14 respectively, broken down by rank of interviewee in relation to target rank 3.3 Selection of the constructs elicited from officers for the target rank of sergeant 15

3.4 What police authority members look for from Chief Officers (percentages of 16 responses falling into the various categories) N = 62 3.5 Range of responses from police authority members as to chief officer qualities for 17 which they feel they have the least adequate evidence during the selection process 3.6 Comparison of the views of police officers and police authority members on 18 what makes a good police leader 3.7 Comparison of the 14 dimensions of transformational leadership with the 19 constructs used by police officers to describe effective leadership behaviours 4.1 Mean scores for transformational leadership by rank/role 21 4.2 Numbers of officers overall who agreed or disagreed with particular statements 23 about the effect their line manager’s behaviour had on them (N = 1066)

Figure 4.1 Distribution of transformational leadership scores for 1066 police officers 22

v

Executive summary Leadership is generally regarded as key to performance, and improving police leadership is a central plank in the police reform agenda. To date, no research evidence has been provided to show a clear link between particular styles of police leadership and police effectiveness. Whenever police performance has been criticised and police leadership has fallen under scrutiny as a result, there has been no generally accepted leadership theory against which practice could be tested, and no clarity about how police leadership might need to change. A further consequence of the lack of evidence has been that forces have not felt able to specify what kind of leadership their officers should provide and styles have differed from leader to leader. It seems highly likely that some of the styles in use will be more effective than others. This research was therefore designed to assist the Police Leadership Development Board to identify ways in which police leadership needs to change, in order to meet the requirements of the modernisation and police reform agendas and the National Policing Plan 2003-6. Methods The research was undertaken through three inter-linked studies: • An interview study of 150 police officers drawn from across the rank structure to discover what

they regarded as effective police leadership. These interviews were carried out using the repertory grid technique to ensure that officers were able to describe ‘effective leadership’ in their own words, without being influenced by the interviewers.

• A postal questionnaire survey of police authorities to discover what they regarded as effective police leadership for senior police officers.

• A postal questionnaire study of 1066 police officers and police staff to discover what kind of leadership they were experiencing and what impact it was having on their attitudes to work.

Findings • In broad terms, the study found that police officers want their leaders to make them feel proud of

the service being provided and of their contribution. The behaviours identified by those interviewed as linked to effective leadership could be categorised into four groups as follows:

− Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and supporting staff to achieve this.

− Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour. − Enabling, valuing and developing staff. − Having relevant knowledge and skills.

• Within these categories, 53 specific behaviours were identified as being related to effective leadership, of which 50 were found to match closely with a style of leadership known as ‘transformational’. Police leaders who displayed these ‘transformational’ behaviours were found, in the officers and staff questionnaire study, to have a wide range of positive effects on their subordinates' attitudes to their work, for example increasing their job satisfaction and their commitment to the organisation.

• The remaining three types of effective leadership behaviour which did not match transformational leadership definitions can be described as ‘professional competence’, ‘competent in both strategic and tactical modes’ and ‘committed to achieving a high quality service, serving the community well, ensuring a good image for policing in the community and seeking continuous improvement’. These aspects of leadership were regarded as important by subordinates because they did not wish to have to follow orders which they regarded as wrong from either a tactical or an ethical standpoint. These are not part of the transformational framework because of its emphasis on supporting effective decision-making by grass roots workers, rather than on following orders.

• Alongside positive examples of leadership behaviour, the repertory grid study generated a large number of negative examples, such as being lazy, moody, unethical and not dealing with poor or

vi

unacceptable performance. Many of these tended to occur together in the same leaders; most of the 150 interviewees described at least one leader who displayed multiple negative behaviours.

• Police authority members regarded staff morale and motivation as key to delivery and looked to chief officers to have a positive impact in this area. However, these were also the qualities which police authority members said were most difficult to assess reliably in candidates for senior leadership roles.

• The questionnaire survey of police officers and police staff found that, for each positive impact which line managers could potentially have on their subordinates, between a quarter and a third of line managers were not having this positive impact.

• In conjunction with the growing evidence, from other service sectors, that the way a worker feels they are treated by the organisation can affect their performance and impact on customer satisfaction and organisational performance, these findings suggest a link between certain police leadership behaviours and police organisational performance, which could be tested further.

Recommendations • Key stakeholders, including members of the Police Leadership Development Board (PLDB), the

new justice sector skills organisation ‘Skills for Justice’ and the National Police Leadership Centre at Centrex should begin to develop an evidence-based model, detailing the key elements of effective police leadership.

• The PLDB has already endorsed the need for transformational leadership throughout the service and has commissioned learning and development packages from Centrex, for all staff up to Chief Officer and equivalent grades, which take into account the principles of transformational leadership. These training designs and leadership development processes should be installed both locally and nationally as soon as possible.

• All recruitment and selection processes for the service, from constable to chief officer and from CID to community beat, need to be able to distinguish those candidates who are able to have a positive impact on subordinates through the kind of leadership they provide.

• The PLDB should develop a strategic plan for ensuring appropriate police leadership standards throughout the service. This plan should detail how to tackle poor leadership and use positive role models to best advantage.

1

1. Introduction Leadership, employee attitudes and customer satisfaction Professional consensus, in both the public and private sectors, is that leadership is key to performance. However, whenever there are concerns about performance within the public sector, and leadership ‘comes under the microscope’, there is no generally accepted theory against which practice can be tested. The lack of a definitive theory, and the lack of evidence as to the impact of particular styles of leadership were noted in the recent report ‘Strengthening Leadership in the Public Sector’ (Cabinet Office 2001):

‘Britain’s public services face unprecedented challenges at the start of the 21st century. They include: demands to modernise public services and orient them more closely to the needs and wishes of customers [and] higher expectations on the part of the general public […] However, [t]here is little shared understanding of the qualities required for effective leadership in today’s public services. Leadership theory is riven by conflicting interpretations, in a full spectrum from those who emphasise the primary importance of personal qualities to those who say that systems are all-important. Leaders themselves often do not understand the reasons for their own effectiveness[…] Fundamental to improved leadership is a clearer shared understanding of what leadership behaviours work in delivering today's public services […T]here are many leadership development initiatives, and new leadership colleges are being set up. But there is little evidence so far as to their effectiveness.’

A small number of studies have shown that if the employees providing a service are happy with the way they are treated by the organisation, then their customers tend to be happier with the service they receive (Adsit et al.,1996, Rucci et al.,1998, Barber et al.,1999) and one of the factors which clearly ought to have a positive impact on employees’ attitudes to their work is the kind of leadership they experience. In other parts of the UK public sector and in the private sector, a strong link has been found between a leader demonstrating dimensions of a style of leadership known as ‘transformational’ and their subordinates having a wide range of positive attitudes towards their work (Bass 1998, Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe 2000b). ‘Transformational’ leaders try to motivate by supporting and empowering subordinates to take on more challenging and intrinsically interesting work. This approach can be compared with a more traditional ‘transactional’ model, where the leader tries to motivate through providing extrinsic rewards and punishments. According to its advocates, ‘transformational leadership’ is required because most organisations are now operating in a context of rapid and unpredictable change in which leaders must ensure that their subordinates are appropriately developed, supported and empowered to enable them to take sound decisions for themselves in the course of their everyday work at the front line. Transformational leaders have been shown to be more effective and satisfying as leaders than transactional leaders (Bass and Avolio 1994, Hinkin and Tracey 1994) in the long term as well as in the short term (Geyer and Steyrer 1998), and more successful in generating subordinate extra effort and commitment (Bass 1998 op cit; Bass 1985; Hater and Bass 1988; Howell and Avolio 1991), due in part to their ability to inspire self-confidence, to stimulate learning experiences, to transmit a sense of mission and to arouse new ways of thinking. Transformational leadership has also been associated with the effective implementation of change in a variety of settings (Bass 1985 op cit, Hater and Bass 1988 op cit). The police service context The National Policing Plan for 2003-6 (Home Office 2002) stated that ‘[s]trong police leadership [was] central to delivering improvements in police performance and therefore to reducing crime and the fear of crime’ whilst the Police Reform White Paper (Home Office 2001) noted that ‘Improved training, leadership and professionalism [were] required at every

2

level of the police service […] to take on the challenge of a more varied and more satisfying approach to modern policing’. Owing to concerns about police performance, police leadership has come under criticism in recent years (e.g. Condon 1997, HMIC 1999a, HMIC 1999b, Home Office 1999, Vick 2000) and many attempts have been made to try to improve its quality. Tripartite bodies have been established at the national level to try to address the issue, the most recent of these being the Police Leadership Development Board (PLDB), which was established in early 2001. The various leadership models and theories which have been applied within the police service have been reviewed by several authors (e.g. Adair 1983, Bass 1990, Yukl 1994), but the evidence that any particular form of police leadership leads to improved individual or organisational performance is weak. The Police Integrated Competency Framework and National Occupational Standards is a recent initiative which aims to put such issues as selection, assessment, development and promotion on a sounder and more standardised footing. The framework defines the tasks involved in carrying out the various roles within the police service and the knowledge and skills needed to accomplish these tasks competently. It also lists 12 generic behaviours which underpin all police work and four of these behaviours are identified as relating to leadership. Thus, there has been some attempt, within the framework, to specify leadership requirements and the Police Standards and Skills Organisation, which has taken over responsibility for the framework, is now producing related occupational standards for police work. However, the evidence base for this work has consisted principally of professional judgement. There is some evidence within the policing context (MPS and Scotland) to suggest a connection between officers’ morale and officers’ performance and for the positive or negative impact of supervisors on morale (Lester, 2000, Sinclair, 2000, Burbeck, 1987). In addition, initial discussions with officers at various ranks in forces around the country before commencing this research, suggested that leadership behaviours regarded by officers as inappropriate, might not be altogether uncommon and that individual motivation and performance might be suffering to a significant degree as a result. The situation for policing is similar, therefore, to elsewhere in the public sector. Whilst police leadership has fallen under regular criticism, owing to perceived failings in police performance, it has never been clear precisely how police leadership needed to change. Transformational leadership became of increasing interest to the PLDB, over the course of the work reported here, but although there was evidence of its impact elsewhere in the public sector, there was no corresponding information available specifically for the police service and many people argued that leadership within the police service was unique to a greater or lesser degree. Aims and objectives The principal aim of the research programme was to assist the Police Leadership Development Board to identify ways in which police leadership might need to change, in order to meet the requirements of the modernisation and police reform agendas and the National Policing Plan 2003-6. The ultimate focus for leadership is to bring about improved performance and since this performance has to be delivered through subordinates, leadership has to achieve its success through influencing subordinates to perform ‘better’. This research programme therefore assumed that the fundamental purpose of a leader is to enhance the current and future performance of their subordinates. Any behaviour of a manager which impacts either negatively or positively on the work of staff would be regarded as a leadership behaviour. Key factors which needed to be taken on board in deciding the direction of the research were:

3

• Although police leadership had often been criticised in recent years, there had been no generally accepted model of police leadership against which current practice could be tested, and towards which it could be advised to move.

• There was a view that leadership which was appropriate in one policing context might be inappropriate in another, for example in a public order setting as compared with the supervision of routine patrol.

• Possibly because of the above factors, forces did not specify what kind of leadership their officers should provide and styles differed from leader to leader.

• It seemed likely that some of the styles in use would be more effective than others.

• The impact of leadership would be felt throughout the rank structure.

• Police staff, as well as sworn officers, held positions as leaders and could be led by or lead officers.

• The customer perspective on police leadership had rarely been explored. The main objectives of the research were: • to examine leadership at all officer ranks and amongst police staff;

• to obtain the perspectives of the ‘led’ (officers and police staff) and those representing the ‘customer’ locally (police authorities) on what kinds of leadership they regarded as effective; and

• to gather evidence on the impact of particular styles of leadership. In this context, the three key research questions are set out below, followed by a brief description of the methods used to respond to each. A more detailed description of the methodologies is set out in Chapter 2. What is regarded as effective police leadership by police officers and police authority members? One hundred and fifty police officers were interviewed individually to discover what leadership behaviours they regarded as effective and ineffective respectively. They were allowed to introduce their own descriptions of leadership and to define effectiveness in their own terms so as to avoid researcher-introduced bias. The terms in which police officers defined effective leadership were then examined. As the kind of leadership which NHS and local government managers regarded as appropriate and effective in their context had already been established in other research (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe 2000a), it was not thought essential to include police staff in this particular study. Since the specific duties of police authorities included appointing force chief officers and monitoring force performance, all police authorities were invited to take part in a postal questionnaire survey, which asked them to describe, in their own words, what they expected of the chief officer role and what qualities they looked for in chief officers. From their responses, the researchers were able to draw out what kind of leadership they regarded as effective in achieving performance. The respective perspectives were then compared, to examine the extent of agreement as to what constitutes effective leadership. What is the impact of police leadership on staff in the service? The evidence here came from a questionnaire survey in which officers and police staff described the leadership behaviours of their current line manager and reported the positive or negative effects which these were having on the respondent, in terms of psychological outcomes. In conjunction with the growing evidence from other service sectors, that the way a worker feels they are treated by the organisation can affect their performance and impact on customer satisfaction and organisational performance, this provided evidence to build a

4

testable model of the link between certain police leadership behaviours and police organisational performance. How can police leadership improve? The response to this question drew on findings from all three studies.

5

2. Design and methodology of the elements of the research programme Three data collection exercises were proposed: � An interview study of police officers

� A questionnaire study of police authorities

� A questionnaire study of police officers and police staff The methodologies of these respective exercises are described below. Design and methodology of the interview study of police officers Since the aim of leadership is to have a positive impact on subordinates, the aim of the interview study was to discover what styles of leadership police officers see as most effective. To this end, it was decided to carry out a series of individual interviews with around 150 officers drawn from across the rank structure, and from forces across the country, in order to ascertain what they saw as effective leadership at each respective rank. Each interview would be focused on leadership at one of five target ranks (Constable, Sergeant, Inspector, Superintendent, and ACPO) and each target rank would be considered by samples of officers at ranks above, below, and at the target rank. Thus, samples of Constables, Sergeants, Inspectors and Superintendents would all be invited to provide views on what kind of leadership should be provided at the target rank of Sergeant, for example. In September 2001, all 43 forces were contacted and asked if they would be willing to participate in the overall leadership research programme. Of the 30 who were interested, ten were eventually selected to take part in the first part of the research programme (the interview study of officers). These represented a good geographical spread and included both rural and urban forces. Each was allocated a particular week between February and April 2002, and asked to arrange 15 interviews with officers ranging from Constables to Chief Officers, during the week concerned. Repertory grid methodology In order to reduce interviewer bias in these interviews, and to ensure a focus on issues which were real for the interviewee, the repertory grid approach was chosen. This technique has been used in a wide variety of research contexts, but particularly where it is important to get a picture of the interviewee's personal construct system (Kelly, 1955). Both researchers took theoretical and practical training in repertory grid technique during November/December 2001 and the specific repertory grid design was formulated, piloted in two forces, and finalised during January 2002. The method contained the following stages: • The interviewee called to mind six officers at the target rank chosen for their interview

who they had encountered during their career. Some identifier for each was written onto an index card, and at the head of one of the columns 1 to 6 in the grid (see Appendix A for the grid form used). The six officers were referred to using labels which kept their identity hidden from the interviewer but enabled the interviewee to recall and distinguish between them easily.

• The six index cards were shuffled and the interviewee was presented with three and asked if they could see any similarity between two of these officers, in how they exercised leadership at that rank, which was not shared by the third officer.

• Once the interviewee had clarified the similarity in their mind they wrote a description of this in the left-hand side of the grid in the first row. In the right-hand side of the grid, and in the same row, they wrote a description of how the third officer contrasted with the other

6

two. Each construct was thus bi-polar as it consisted of a behaviour observed in two of the three officers and the contrasting behaviour of the third officer.

• The interviewee then gave all six officers a rating between one (if they were seen as being at one pole of the construct) and five (if they were seen as being at the other).

• After a number of constructs had been elicited and scored in this way, the interviewee was invited to say if there were any other constructs which they saw as important for effectiveness in that rank, and these constructs were added and scored.

• All six officers were then given scores between one and five for their perceived overall effectiveness as a leader in the rank concerned. By comparing the rankings given for the respective individual constructs with the rankings given for overall effectiveness, it was possible to identify which constructs the interviewee judged as most closely related to perceived effectiveness in the rank concerned.

• The interviewees were asked to define what they saw as the 'ideal' position between one and five for each construct, by completing the column headed ID. In some cases, the interviewee identified the 'ideal' position on the scale as being close to but not at the end of the poles (i.e. they scored the ideal as a 2 or as a 4 rather than as a 1 or as a 5). In a few cases, the ideal position was actually seen as being at the mid-point of the scale, which usually reflected their recognition of the competing tensions operating in the situations they described.

• Finally, they were asked to place a tick against the descriptions of behaviour which they felt were the most important in defining effective leadership at the rank concerned.

Most found completing the grid a thought-provoking and meaningful experience. Some found it a particularly revealing and insightful process and two asked if they could take away copies of their own grid. The majority of interviews took less than 90 minutes. As well as completing the grid, there was an opportunity, within the above time-scale, for each interviewee to discuss the aims of the project, and for them to say something about their own experiences of police leadership. The initial sample Twelve officers who had originally been programmed to be interviewed were unable to attend due to urgent duties elsewhere. However, between February and April 2002, 138 police officers out of the intended sample of 150, drawn from ten different forces and from across the rank structure, were interviewed about police leadership using the repertory grid technique. Each officer was interviewed about leadership either at their own rank or at one of the ranks above or below them, as shown in Table 2.1.

7

Table 2.1: Numbers of officers taking part in the main repertory grid study, broken down by the interviewee’s rank and the rank under consideration during their interview Target Rank considered during the interview

Chief Officer

Superintendent Inspector Sergeant Constable Grand total

Interviewee Rank Chief Constable 3 2 1 6 DCC 2 3 1 6 ACC 5 5 2 12 Area Commander 2 2 Chief Superintendent

1 1 3 1 6

D Chief Superintendent

1 1

Superintendent 6 4 4 2 16 Chief Inspector 1 3 1 3 8 D Chief Inspector 1 2 3 Inspector 7 4 5 6 22 D Inspector 1 1 1 3 Sergeant 1 7 8 6 22 D Sergeant 1 1 2 Constable 9 11 7 27 D Constable 1 1 Police Staff 1 1 Grand Total 22 30 34 32 20 138

The intention was to interview the same number of officers in each of the respective ranks (Constable, Sergeant, Inspector, Superintendent, and ACPO) and to have some of these comment on leadership in their own rank and some on leadership at other ranks. For the first of the ten forces, the two researchers who were carrying out the interviewing shared the task between them with each taking turns to interview or observe. This helped to establish consistency in the interviewing process. The remaining forces were divided between the two researchers. Sifting and categorisation of the constructs elicited A total of 1500 leadership constructs were elicited from the 138 officers who completed grids. Each construct consisted of a positive behaviour and a contrasting negative behaviour and was typed into a spreadsheet along with the respective ratings given to each of the six officers called to mind in completing the grid, and together with an indicator of whether or not the interviewee had seen the construct as important in defining effectiveness at the rank concerned. The rank of the interviewee, and the target rank which was the subject of the interview, were also entered in the spreadsheet. Constructs not seen as important in defining effectiveness, or ones for which the ratings given by the interviewee were not sufficiently strongly related to the ratings given for effectiveness, were then sifted out. This left 978 effective leadership constructs. The next step was to ignore the rank which had been under consideration and find a way to group and categorise all of these 978 constructs. A cyclical process was followed in which, after reading through all the constructs, a category system was proposed and applied independently by each of the researchers. Differences in coding were then discussed, and the system was refined, before being applied again independently. All 978 constructs were categorised into one of four main categories, eight sub-categories and 53 sub-sub-categories, after this process had been repeated three times and the resulting categorisation was highly reliable at even the most detailed level. The categories which emerged are shown in

8

Appendix B. There were inevitably other valid ways in which these constructs might have been categorised but the categories used served the purpose of being both reliable and meaningful. The supplementary study At the Police Leadership Development Board meeting in June 2002, a draft interim report on the results of the 138 repertory grid interviews carried out with police officers was presented. The 138 officers included both male and female officers and both white and minority ethnic officers, but it was not known whether the sample included any gay or lesbian police officers. In order to ensure a representative sample of views was included in this survey, it was decided that a supplementary sample of officers nominated by the Lesbian and Gay Police Association (LAGPA) would be interviewed and the results compared with the former results. With the assistance of a number of national and local LAGPA officers, a series of 12 interviews (three in each of four different forces) were organised and carried out during August 2002. Seven of the interviewees were male and one of these was minority ethnic. As well as ensuring that gay and lesbian officers were included in the study, this brought the total number of interviews overall up to the original target of 150. Table 2.2 shows the ranks of the 12 interviewees, and the rank which was the subject of their respective interviews. Notice that no chief officers were included in the supplementary sample and nor was the target rank of chief officer used in any of the 12 interviews. The aim was to achieve at least one interview at each of the other ranks. Table 2.2: Numbers of officers taking part in the supplementary repertory grid study, broken down by interviewee’s rank and rank considered during interview

Rank under consideration during interview PC Sgt Insp Sup Total

PC 1 2 3 Sgt 3 1 4 Insp 2 2 4 Sup 1 1

Rank of interviewee

Total 1 5 3 3 12 One hundred and twenty bi-polar constructs were obtained in the interviews. When the constructs which the interviewee did not see as being related to effective leadership in the rank concerned were removed, a total of 80 remained. This attrition rate very closely matched the one in the original study (for which 1500 constructs were reduced to 978). The 80 remaining constructs were easily categorised into the broad groups used in the original study. The generalisability of the results As the evidence assembled in the two repertory grid studies was essentially a collation of personal constructs, the main sampling consideration was that a sufficiently wide range of officers should be included in the study, so that all or most of the constructs being used by police officers nationally were likely to have been elicited in the course of the interviews. This was done by carrying out a total of 150 interviews (138 in the main study and 12 in the supplementary study) across the five main ranks and across a total of 14 different forces, representing a range of geographical settings. If the elicited constructs covered most of the constructs in use nationally, then we could be sure that all constructs in use throughout the police service would fit into the defined categories. Also, if the proportions of constructs falling in the respective categories were broadly similar from one target rank to another, from one interviewee rank to another, or between the initial and supplementary samples, this would provide some reassurance that these proportions might apply more widely.

9

Since the constructs elicited from any particular officer depended to some extent on the six officers they decided to use in completing their grid and the thoroughness of the interview, and since judging which of these were most strongly related to effectiveness required arbitrary standard thresholds to be set, it was not valid to deduce that if a construct was not included amongst the effectiveness constructs elicited from a particular officer then that officer did not use that construct as an effectiveness construct. Both for this reason and the fact that the officers were not chosen randomly, it was not relevant to calculate what percentage of officers used effectiveness constructs in all four main categories. Design and methodology of the questionnaire study of police authorities The aim of the police authority members’ survey was to provide a customer perspective on what kind of leadership was appropriate in the police service by asking how police authorities carried out their selection of senior officers. The police authority members’ survey was designed in conjunction with the Association of Police Authorities and posted out from the Association to all police authorities in early September 2002. Each authority was invited to provide up to four separate responses to the survey questions and the Chair of the Authority was asked to nominate either individual members of the Authority, or groups of members, to make these responses on behalf of the Authority. Twenty-nine authorities (67.4%) responded, all but one of whom had nominated one or more individual members to respond on their behalf. The remaining authority delegated a committee of four of its members to make a group response. A total of 62 responses were received representing a total of 65 authority members. The 65 members included 42 male, 22 female, and one who did not give their gender. Sixty-two of the respondents were white, two were from minority ethnic backgrounds, and one did not give their ethnic origin. Although the same questions were asked of each respondent, the questions were open-ended and not pre-coded, and so were answered in the respondent’s own words and according to what was uppermost in their own minds. If 70 per cent mentioned a specific aspect of policing, we could conclude that at least 70 per cent of the respondents would agree that this aspect was important, since even more might have agreed if prompted. The survey included the following questions: 1. What do you see as the main role of chief officers? 2. What would you regard as the main qualities which chief officers must possess? 3. What evidence is usually available to you to enable you to assess the presence of these

particular qualities in a candidate? 4. For which qualities does this evidence tend to be least adequate for enabling you to make

a confident assessment? 5. What would you see as the main qualities which a BCU Commander must possess and

why?

For each question in turn, the first step in the analysis was to make a list of all the different responses and create categories which would allow them to be grouped together. The categories were chosen to be easily interpretable and reliable (so that different judges would place responses in the same category). Responses were then coded so that, for each question, counts of the numbers of answers fitting into particular categories could be given. Because of the size of the sample, the range of responses to any particular question would probably give a reasonable guide to the likely range of responses which would be obtained from police authority members in general. Also, any response to questions 1, 2, and 5 would have some legitimacy as a potential leadership performance measure. Since the number of respondents making any particular response would be likely to underestimate the number of respondents who would agree with the sentiment expressed in the response, and since the sample of respondents was not drawn randomly, the proportion of our sample who made a

10

particular response might not necessarily provide a guide to the proportion of police authority members in general who would agree with the sentiment. Design and methodology of the questionnaire study of police officers and police staff The aim of the questionnaire survey of police officers and police staff was to discover whether the leadership behaviours thought effective or ineffective by officers were being observed in practice and what effect these had on subordinates. The repertory grid exercise gave a very clear picture of what kinds of leadership behaviour were valued and thought effective by officers. As we shall see in the next chapter, which reports the results of the repertory grid study, there was a good correspondence between 50 of the 53 sub-sub categories of constructs which officers used to describe effective leadership and the 14 dimensions of a style of leadership known as Transformational Leadership. It was therefore decided to discover whether transformational leadership was being provided within the police service and what effect experiencing or not experiencing such leadership had on subordinates. The main aims of the survey were, therefore, to: • investigate which aspects of transformational leadership were currently being provided by

police leaders; and

• investigate the relationship between particular aspects of transformational leadership and particular self-reported psychological outcomes for the people being led.

As an instrument called the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) was already in existence, had been developed and extensively validated (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2000b op cit; Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2001), and had already been used widely within the UK public sector (in the NHS, local government and the Prison Service), it was decided to use this instrument in the study. A sample of officers drawn from across all ranks was, therefore, asked to complete a copy of the TLQ (direct report version) together with a short biographical sheet giving such details as their rank and the rank of their line manager (but no names). The TLQ (direct report version) consists of 111 statements about line managers’ leadership behaviours and the respondent has to say how strongly they either agree or disagree that each statement in turn applies to their line manager (e.g. ‘Is consistent in her/his behaviour, rather than being moody or unpredictable’ - to be answered as either Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Slightly Disagree, Slightly Agree, Agree, Strongly Agree, Don’t Know, or Not Relevant). Answers to the 111 individual questions are combined into scores (for the line manager) on each of the 14 dimensions of transformational leadership. In addition, there are ten other questions interspaced throughout the TLQ which are answered in a similar way, but which ask about the impact these behaviours have on the respondent (e.g. Behaves in a way that raises my motivation to achieve). As well as addressing the above aims, this study would provide an opportunity both to test out the feasibility of using the instrument with a policing population and to assess the reliabilities and validities of the scales, with such a population. If the TLQ proved to be reliable and valid then it could provide a possible diagnostic tool to help take transformational leadership forwards within the police service. The sample All 43 forces were invited to take part in the survey and 36 (84%) agreed to provide respondents. The survey took place during August/September 2002 and a total of 2160 survey packs were distributed to officers by their force liaison officers (60 packs were sent to

11

each force liaison officer). A total of 1066 questionnaires and biographical sheets were returned, representing 49 per cent of the packs which had been distributed to officers. Return rates for individual forces ranged from 18 per cent to 72 per cent. According to the instruction letter to liaison officers, the 60 packs sent to each force were to be distributed to five officers in each of the 12 categories shown in Table 2.3. The numbers of officers in each category from whom completed questionnaires were received is also shown in this table (the intended number in each category was 180). Table 2.3: Numbers of officers returning completed questionnaires and bio sheets, broken down by their rank and by the rank/role of their line manager

Numbers returned

Probationary police officers under the guidance of tutor constables 49 Uniformed police officers led by police sergeants leading operational functions 100 Uniformed or police support staff led by police sergeants leading support functions 30 Uniformed police officers led by police inspectors leading operational functions 112 Uniformed or police support staff led by police inspectors leading support functions 59 Uniformed police officers led by police superintendents leading operational functions 92 Uniformed or police support staff led by police superintendents leading support functions

61

Uniformed police officers led by chief officers leading operational functions 60 Uniformed or police support staff led by chief officers leading support functions 43 Uniformed or police support staff led by police support staff junior managers 11 Uniformed or police support staff led by police support staff middle managers 40 Uniformed or police support staff led by police support staff senior managers 128 Category not clear or not as above 281 Total 1066 The respondents were drawn from across the rank structure, and 84 per cent of the police forces in England and Wales were represented, including metropolitan, urban and rural forces. In addition, the sample was found to include a full range of staff, from those who saw their line manager as strongly transformational to those who identified no such qualities in their manager. Since the sample was not drawn randomly, however, it is possible that those results which are expressed in terms of percentages of officers may not be strictly applicable to police officers in general. Officers’ views of the questionnaire Of the 1066 officers who completed questionnaires and biographical sheets, 99 per cent did this in under an hour and 85 per cent in half an hour or less, whilst 94 per cent of respondents said the instructions were ‘easy to follow’. Respondents were asked, ‘How relevant was the questionnaire for assessing the leadership effectiveness of the individual you rated?’ Thirty-five per cent of respondents said the questionnaire was ‘very relevant’ and a further 56 per cent that it was ‘relevant in part’. There were 71 respondents who said the questions were ‘Not very relevant’ including 19 per cent of the constables who completed the questionnaire and ten per cent of the police staff junior managers. Table 2.4 shows what percentage of the officers at each rank felt the questionnaire was very relevant, relevant in part, and not very relevant respectively for assessing the leadership effectiveness of their line manager. Notice that 170 respondents had not completed the section on relevance at the end of the questionnaire and a few had not given their own rank, so the table is based on the 839 respondents for whom there was complete data. A substantial majority of all ranks felt the questions were either ‘Very Relevant’ or ‘Relevant in part’ and, for six of the ten ranks (viz. inspector, chief inspector, superintendent, chief superintendent, police staff middle manager, and police staff senior manager), at least 42 per cent of the respondents felt the questionnaire was ‘Very relevant’ for assessing the leadership effectiveness of their line manager.

12

Table 2.4: Views on the relevance of the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire to police leadership, broken down by rank/role (n=839)

Relevance of questionnaire (percentages making respective responses) Very relevant Relevant in part Not very relevant

Total

Constable 18 64 19 100 Sergeant 29 65 6 100 Inspector 42 53 5 100 Chief Inspector 48 49 4 100 Superintendent 50 43 8 100 Chief Superintendent

48 48 5 100

Police Staff Junior Manager

28 62 10 100

Police Staff Middle Manager

51 44 5 100

Percentage within rank/role

Police Staff Senior Manager

49 51

100

Percentage of all ranks 36 56 9 100 Sixty-eight per cent of the respondents were male and 32 per cent female. There was no difference in the perceived relevance of the questions between male and female respondents. As ninety-seven per cent of respondents were white, it was not possible to make any useful comparisons in terms of ethnicity. It was found that nearly one in four respondents had been supervised by their line manager for less than six months whilst at the other extreme one in four had known their line manager for two years or more. As well as marking the statements as ones with which they strongly agreed, agreed, slightly agreed, slightly disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed, the respondents had the option of saying ‘don’t know’ or ‘not relevant’. The total number of ‘don’t know’ responses which a respondent made increased (quite naturally) the shorter the length of time they had known their line manager. Respondents who had known their line manager for less than six months made an average of 13 ‘don’t know’ responses (out of a possible 121) compared to an average of four ‘don’t know’ responses for respondents who had known their line manager for four years or more. Forty-two per cent of respondents did not make any ‘don’t know’ responses. Also, 70 per cent of respondents did not mark any of the questions as being ‘not relevant’. The highest number of ‘not relevant’ responses made by any one respondent was 39 (out of 121). Eighty-eight per cent of respondents saw their line manager either ‘daily’ or ‘several times a week’. This would seem to suggest ample opportunity for leaders to increase job satisfaction for, and add value to the work of, their subordinates, although two per cent said they only saw their line manager at most once every few months. At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were invited to write in any ‘Other comments’. One hundred and seventy one respondents provided feedback in this way and this consisted mainly of detailed comments on the questionnaire and its usefulness in this context.

13

3. What is regarded as effective police leadership by police officers and police authority members? This chapter draws on findings from two sources: • The police officer face-to-face interview study, on what officers regard as effective

leadership.

• The police authority members’ postal survey, on what police authority members regard as effective leadership.

Effective leadership: the police officer perspective In the main officer interview study, 978 descriptions of leadership behaviour or constructs were elicited through a process of asking officers to compare and contrast leaders they had worked with and then separating out those which the interviewee associated with effective leadership (see Chapter 2 for a full description of the process and Appendix C for a full verbatim list of the constructs, split into positive and negative behaviours, by category and target rank). The four main categories into which all of these effective leadership constructs fell were: • Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and to

supporting staff to achieve this (11% of the constructs fell into this category).

• Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour (19% of the constructs).

• Enabling, valuing and developing staff (44%).

• Having relevant knowledge and skills (26%). Table 3.1 shows how many of the descriptions fell within each of the four main categories, broken down by the rank being considered during the interview. There were minor differences in the proportions falling in the respective categories from one rank to another, but the four broad categories of leadership constructs were found to be associated with effectiveness in all five ranks and the categories were ranked in almost identical order by size (as measured by the number of constructs they contained) for each rank.

Table 3.1: Numbers and percentages of constructs falling in each of the four main categories respectively, broken down by target rank under consideration

Broad Category Target Rank considered during the interview Chief

Officer Superintendent Inspector Sergeant Constable Grand

Total Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and to supporting staff to achieve this

14 10%

26 13%

31 12%

28 12%

9 6%

108 11%

Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behavior

18 13%

34 16%

48 19%

46 20%

42 29%

188 19%

Enabling, valuing and developing staff

68 49%

98 47%

119 47%

94 41%

53 37%

432 44%

Having relevant knowledge and skills

40 29%

50 24%

56 22%

63 27%

41 28%

250 26%

Total 140 100%

208 100%

254 100%

231 100%

145 100%

978 100%

14

Table 3.2 gives a breakdown of the constructs according to whether the officer interviewed was at the same rank or was above or below the rank they were considering during the interview. Those at the same rank or below were less likely to mention constructs related to ‘Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour’ than interviewees above the rank. However, there was a substantial measure of agreement irrespective of whether the commentator was above, below or at the same rank. In essence, what officers see as effective leadership, irrespective of rank, is that which enables them to feel proud of the service being provided and their contribution to its delivery.

Table 3.2: Numbers and percentages of constructs falling in each of the four main categories respectively, broken down by rank of interviewee in relation to target rank

Subcategory Higher rank Lower rank Same rank Grand total Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and to supporting staff to achieve this

9% 14% 11% 11%

Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behavior

27% 15% 16% 19%

Enabling, valuing and developing staff 37% 48% 48% 44% Having relevant knowledge and skills 27% 23% 26% 25% Grand total 100% 100% 100% 100% Results from the supplementary sample of lesbian and gay officers were very similar to those from the main sample. ‘Enabling, valuing and developing staff’ was slightly more strongly represented in the supplementary sample than in the original sample whilst ‘having relevant knowledge and skills’ was slightly less strongly represented, but all of the constructs elicited paralleled ones found in the main sample. See Appendix D for a full list of these constructs broken down by target rank. Many interviewees mentioned that it was rare for an officer to be told clearly what kind of leadership they would be expected to provide when they came into a new leadership role. Nor did most forces appear to have lists of acceptable and unacceptable leadership behaviours. The result of this was that officers evolved their own styles of leading with little guidance or control exercised by the force. Whereas this can lead to valued leadership being provided (as evidenced by the lists of positive behaviours reported in the repertory grids study) it is clearly not always the case (as is evidenced by the negative behaviours in the same lists). Below is an extract from some of the behaviours relating to sergeants which the officers recorded in their grids in their own words and which illustrates the variety in more detail. These are all from within the category ‘Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour’.

15

Table 3.3: Selection of the constructs elicited from officers for the target rank of sergeant

Sergeants Positive pole Negative pole

Ethical and professional Unethical Won't stand for any nonsense Buries head in the sand Appropriately and sensitively challenges and deals with poor/unacceptable performance

Don't effectively challenge or deal with poor/unacceptable performance

High personal integrity giving rise to high standards Low integrity giving rise to low standards No personal agendas Create pressure to conform to their personal

agendas Behaves appropriately Undermining through inappropriate use of humour Enthusiastic, positive attitude Defensive/negative attitude and behaviour Hard working and competent Lazy Interest in work Apathy to role Enthusiastic and committed to job Just a job Take responsibility Stands back Willingness to identify problems and tackle them Ignore problems unless presented to them Able to implement and follow through actions Not able to implement and ensure action is taken Taking ownership for and are reliable for task identification and completion

Does the bare minimum to survive w/out attracting negative appraisal/comment evidence

Always fair and impartial Prone to unreasonable/unfair treatment Personal honesty Bull shitting Someone I felt I could confide in and was loyal to all

Wouldn't trust them 'as far as I could throw them'

Treated all staff with fairness Favouritism in team/staff Consistent behaviour towards staff Moody, unpredictable A focus on sergeants is appropriate as they are the main supporters for officers at the front line and it is vital that they support and add value to the work of those officers. However, exactly parallel examples of motivating or de-motivating behaviour were found to exist at all other ranks, from constable up to chief officer. Effective leadership: the police authority perspective A picture of what police authority members looked for from chief officers was built up from an amalgam of their answers to the two questions ‘What do you see as the main role of chief officers?’ and ‘What would you regard as the main qualities which chief officers must possess?’. The responses fell under four broad heading: ‘gaining support for delivery’, ‘ensuring an appropriate strategy to address identified priorities’, ‘delivering’, and ‘being aware’. Table 3.4 shows the percentage of police authority members who made responses which fell in the respective categories. Whilst police authority members focused on performance in terms of success criteria, they recognised that chief officers had to deliver through other people. Thus 95 per cent of police authority members mentioned at least one criterion which suggested that a chief officer had to be skilled in gaining support for delivery and 47 per cent specifically mentioned that they needed to gain the respect of other officers and motivate them to perform.

16

Table 3.4: What police authority members look for from Chief Officers (percentages of responses falling into the various categories) N = 62 Gaining support for delivery ( 95%) Communicates internally and externally so as to maximise co-operation, politically astute 58 Gives clear direction and focus 58 Gains trust, respect, confidence of community, markets force well, handles media, good PR 50 Gains trust, respect, confidence of staff, motivates, raises morale 47 Treats people fairly sensitively 31 Has integrity honesty 24 Is articulate, a good public speaker, has positive presence 11 Enables staff to achieve their full potential, fully supportive of staff development 3 Ensuring an appropriate strategy to address identified priorities (79%) Arrives at right strategy to meet needs, skilled in planning 35 Quick grasp of essentials, analytical, innovative, flexible 32 Takes responsibility for meeting needs, committed, sincere 26 Has long-term vision, anticipates future needs accurately 18 Decisive, firm, consistent 10 Delivering (58%) Delegates, challenges, sets standards, monitors, evaluates, drives continuous improvement 26 Manages resources effectively and efficiently, good organisation, effective use of officers 26 Committed, dedicated, determined, thorough, resilient, tenacious, prepared to tackle crime 19 Builds and leads effective teams, works effectively with partners 16 Effectively delivers necessary change 6 Being aware (39%) % Listens to the community, empathises, values input from others 18 Good operational policing knowledge and experience 11 Visible approachable open 10 Aware, knows what is going on 10 Open to criticism, responds positively 3 Which chief officer qualities are the most difficult to assess? Police authority members participate in the selection of senior officers. A representative sample of their verbatim responses to the question ‘For which qualities does the evidence tend to be least adequate for enabling you to make a confident assessment?’ are given in Table 3.5, broken down by the four main qualities looked for in senior officers as shown in the table above. These examples cover the full range of responses to this question. Many of the inter-personal qualities which officers see as being important for their leaders to possess are apparently seen as difficult to assess at the time of selection and most of the qualities found difficult to assess fall in the area of ‘Gaining support for delivery’. Some respondents also commented that candidates were readily able to manipulate answers so as to cover up facts and show their good side. One said ‘Many people can pass exams, tests. Few can do the job required and it is often too late when you discover it’. Another said ‘A confident assessment is not an easy task. In most cases, one can only judge on "face value"‘. Yet another, in answer to the question ‘what evidence is available?’, replied ‘Very little’ and added ‘the present appointments procedure provides little opportunity to probe’.

17

Table 3.5: Range of responses from police authority members as to chief officer qualities for which they feel they have the least adequate evidence during the selection process Gaining support for delivery Integrity and commitment Commitment and motivation …integrity, courage, sensitivity… There is little or no evidence available to Police Authorities that allows them to assess integrity and personal voice (training jargon etc. tends to encourage standardised responses). The lack of systems of appraisal for Chief Officers means that Police Authorities may remain ignorant about qualities, such as the ability to create shared meanings, long after their appointment The ability to inspire confidence in subordinates I do not see chief officers when they are dealing with officers or staff …..the respect of subordinates is much more difficult to gauge. It is only by casual conversations with PCs at ground level that this will truly be assessed Ability to motivate staff Motivation and actual leadership, plus humanity Difficult to know how junior officers will respond to a chief officer (a 360 degree appraisal would be useful) Attitude to training and staff development. Diversity issues Fairness Consistent fairness/ man-management Caring Human relations within force and with community and media Reassurance of the public Personal qualities/interpersonal skills The more intangible qualities like leadership, judgement, ability to motivate and inspire, ability to complement and work with existing senior executive team Ensuring an appropriate strategy to address identified priorities Ability to make good judgements Flair, vision, flexibility There is little evidence of how individuals have dealt with strategic issues Delivering The other quality which is only evidenced on paper is how the officer reacts under extreme stress … Ability to take responsibility and to make right judgements in crises Being aware Political awareness and approachability Arrogance, mistrust Communication…is it always defensive? The ability to accept fair criticism and to be willing to change without loss of self-confidence Effective leadership: the qualities required by BCU Commanders

Police authority members were also asked about the main qualities required by BCU commanders. Several made reference to the context of local delivery, the need to inspire and monitor officers, and the need to have good relationships with HQ (e.g. ‘Understanding of the balance between corporacy and devolved responsibility’). Most of the qualities mentioned were qualities which had also been mentioned for chief officers, and a substantial minority of respondents (27%) said the requirements for a BCU Commander were actually either identical or ‘much the same’ as for chief officers. Most of these latter respondents defended this view in some way, rather than simply stating it baldly. One said ‘All of the above (referring to the requirements for chief officers) tempered by the need to adjust to the requirements imposed by senior officers’. This provides further evidence that leadership requirements do not change in essence as one moves through the hierarchy.

18

Effective leadership: comparing authority and officer perspectives Table 3.6 compares the evidence on what police authority members look for from chief officers with the evidence on what police officers look for from their leaders (as derived from the repertory grid studies). We can see, from this table, that 44 per cent of the constructs which police officers used to describe effective leadership were concerned with ‘enabling, valuing and developing staff’, and this was the category most frequently mentioned by officers. Although police authority members tended to define force success in terms of performance, 95 per cent of them saw ‘Gaining support for delivery’ as a crucial quality for a chief officer and 47 per cent specifically mentioned ‘gaining the trust, respect, and confidence of staff, motivating, raising morale’. This fits with the officers’ perspective as it recognises that chief officers need to achieve performance through others. Furthermore, 16 per cent of authority members felt that ‘staff morale, motivation’ was one of the areas where forces were currently falling down. Other similarities are displayed in the table. The important thing to note here is that the results are all based on either officers’ or police authority members’ own words rather than on their ticking of researcher-provided options:

Table 3.6: Comparison of the views of police officers and police authority members on what makes a good police leader Police officers Police authority members 44% of the qualities thought by police officers to be related to effective leadership were related to ‘enabling, valuing and developing staff’

47% of police authority members felt ‘gaining the trust, respect, and confidence of staff, motivating, raising morale’ was important for Chief Officers.

10% of the qualities thought by police officers to be related to effective leadership were related to ‘being committed to achieving a high quality service’

26% of police authority members mentioned ‘Takes responsibility for meeting needs, committed, sincere’ and 19% mentioned ‘Committed, dedicated, determined, thorough, resilient, tenacious, prepared to tackle crime’

20% of the qualities thought by police officers to be related to effective leadership were related to ‘displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour’

31% of police authority members mentioned ‘Treats people fairly, sensitively’, 24% mentioned ‘Has integrity, honesty’, and 26% mentioned ‘Delegates, challenges, sets standards, monitors, evaluates, drives continuous improvement’

25% of the qualities thought by police officers to be related to effective leadership were related to ‘having relevant knowledge and skills’

35% of police authority members mentioned ‘Arrives at right strategy to meet needs, skilled in planning’, 50% mentioned ‘Gains trust, respect, confidence of community, markets force well, handles media, good PR’, and 25% mentioned ‘Manages resources effectively and efficiently, good organisation, effective use of officers’

Effective leadership: relating the police officer perspective to transformational leadership Table 3.7 shows there was a good correspondence between 50 of the 53 sub-sub-categories of constructs which officers used to describe effective leadership and the 14 dimensions of a style of leadership known as Transformational Leadership.

19

Table 3.7: Comparison of the 14 dimensions of transformational leadership with the constructs used by police officers to describe effective leadership behaviours Transformational Leadership

Effective leadership behaviours as defined by officers

Genuine concern for others’ well-being and their development

Takes account of staff welfare issues/compassionate and understanding Takes account of staff welfare in deploying staff Shows active interest in supporting front-line policing/gets involved and takes control when appropriate Caring/having appropriate priorities/puts other interests before own Provides physical and psychological back-up in difficult situations Represents staff concerns to higher authority Avoids making unreasonable demands on staff Displays consistently high professional standards/does not use bullying/sets a good example to staff Develops individuals/guides/coaches/mentors/uses PDR effectively

Empowers, delegates, develops potential

Knows and utilises the skills of staff, uses effective delegation, trusts staff, encourages initiative Values and develops staff/team player/displays humility Shows interest in and acknowledges the work of staff, shows respect for individuals

Transparency, honesty, consistency

Setting and maintaining standards Challenges poor performance Challenges inappropriate behavior Being consistently fair Consistent – no favourites Consistent – no mood swings Displays consistently high personal standards/sets a good example to staff

Integrity and openness to ideas and advice

Open and honest Consultative/encourages participation/listens to others' views/accepts negative feedback/values contributions

Accessible, approachable Maintains visibility/interacts with staff/stays accessible Approachable on any topic

Inspirational communicator, networker and achiever

Generates support from community and from within police service using effective networking Able to communicate effectively with all ranks and members of the public. Has the common touch Displays enthusiasm and energy for tasks/has a positive 'can do' attitude/prepared to take the initiative and give a lead when appropriate/pro-active approach Demonstrates follow-through, determined, persevering, reliable, meets deadlines

Unites through a joint vision Provides clear direction/ensures common purpose Develops effective team-working Disseminates information effectively and appropriately

Clarifies individual and team direction, priorities and purposes

Provides adequate stability/not blowing in the wind Provides effective communication Provides effective and timely decisions when requested Provides useful guidance when requested Organised. Effectively manages time. Prioritises effectively Inspires confidence in command and control situations

Creates a supportive learning and self-development environment

Fosters a learning non-blaming environment Supporting and encouraging staff/creates positive comfortable working environment/helps staff to provide effective high quality service Accepts responsibility for staff, tasks and outcomes

Manages change sensitively and skilfully

Effective negotiating style - internal and external

Charismatic, in-touch Able to motivate through personal qualities/has charisma/presence Personal qualities Good knowledge and skills base/sufficient breadth and depth of experience/has the confidence and respect of colleagues/credible in role/seen as operationally competent

Encourages questioning and critical and strategic thinking

Flexible. Receptive to new ideas. Adaptable. Confident to challenge tradition

Analytical and creative thinker

High intellectual capacity. Can deal with complexity Visionary/innovative/creative

20

Decisive/risk-taking Committed to supporting the achievement of organisational objectives/takes considered risks for the good of the organisation Has courage of own convictions. Stands up for beliefs Has courage in the face of conflict. Prepared to deal with anything. Calm under pressure Makes effective assessment of problems and solutions/politically aware/sees wider issues/takes broader view/has sound judgement

The three sub-categories of constructs which did not match up with Transformational Leadership qualities were ‘Professional competence’, ‘Competent in both strategic and tactical modes’ and ‘Committed to achieving a high quality service, serving the community well, and ensuring a good image for policing in the community/seeks continuous improvement’. Basically, these were seen as important by subordinates as they did not wish to have to follow orders which they regarded as wrong from either a tactical or an ethical standpoint. As the emphasis of transformational leadership is on empowerment rather than obeying orders it is not surprising that these (important) aspects are not covered. All of the constructs from which the 53 categories were formed basically arose from subjective assessments which officers had made of other officers. Although the assessments were subjective they were strongly believed by the assessors, will certainly have influenced their working relationship with the person being assessed, and may well coincide with other officers' views of the same person. However, one further difference between the 50 categories which were linked to transformational qualities and the three which were not is that the former assessments tended to refer to more specific behaviours and ones which might be more easily evidenced. Thus, the former provided a detailed breakdown of all the specific ways in which the person being assessed had interacted with the assessor. By contrast, the latter provided just a global assessment of either the person's 'competence' or their 'commitment' and the implicit criteria for these might be more likely to vary from assessor to assessor. These categories were clearly regarded as important, however, and so it might be useful to try to break these down into more objectively observable behaviours so that they can be included amongst the requirements for police leadership in a more useful form.

21

4. What is the impact of police leadership on staff in the service? The previous chapter showed that the major part of what officers regarded as effective leadership corresponded closely with a form of leadership known as transformational leadership. A sample of 1066 police officers and staff were subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire on transformational leadership, which showed the numbers of staff respectively experiencing or not experiencing particular positive psychological impacts as a result of their line manager’s approach to leadership, and the relationship between the line manager's style of leadership and these psychological impacts. The questionnaire responses enabled each respondent’s line manager to be given a score on each of the 14 scales of transformational leadership, such as ‘Genuine concern for others’ well-being and their development’. As the responses to the individual questions making up each scale were found to be highly correlated with each other, it was possible to make very reliable estimates of each line manager's transformational qualities. The 14 scale scores correlated with each other to a significant degree, suggesting that a line manager who displays one aspect of transformational leadership is also likely to display all the others. As the scale scores were so highly correlated an analysis was carried out to find the best single overall score for summarising each manager’s transformational leadership skills as a whole. This score, referred to as ‘transf’ was simply a weighted combination of the 14 scale scores and was scaled so that the distribution of summary scores had a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. This simply put the scores on a standard scale so that they could be interpreted in a standard way (e.g. 100 means 'average'). Significant differences were found between line managers at the respective ranks, in terms of their overall ‘transf’ scores, as can be seen from Table 4.1. The table shows that Tutor Constables are (by far) the closest to exhibiting transformational leadership behaviours, with police staff junior managers being the furthest away. Sergeants, Superintendents, and Chief Superintendents, all score slightly above average amongst policing groups, with Inspectors being the lowest scoring uniformed ranks. Tutor Constables already have a well identified nurturing and developing role (which is a large part of what transformational leadership is about), and probationers are perhaps particularly susceptible to such influence, but it is clear that the need for such leadership exists at all levels in the service and not just amongst probationers.

Table 4.1: Mean scores for transformational leadership by rank/role

Mean Std. deviation N Tutor Constable 111 8 46 Chief Superintendent 103 12 85 Sergeant 102 15 148 Superintendent 102 13 132 Chief Inspector 100 13 63 Police Staff Senior Manager

100 16 165

Chief Officer 99 14 129 Inspector 97 16 152 Police Staff Middle Manager

94 17 81

Police Staff Junior Manager

91 18 21

Total 100 15 1022

22

Figure 4.1 shows the number of officers making each ‘transf’ score. The maximum possible score (when the respondent strongly agreed that all 111 positive behaviour statements in the questionnaire applied to their line manager) was 124. The minimum possible score (when the respondent strongly disagreed that any of the 111 positive behaviours in the questionnaire applied to their line manager) was 44. Figure 4.1: Distribution of transformational leadership scores for 1066 police officers

Transformational Leadership (Standardised First Factor Scores)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92 96 100 104 108 112 116 120 124

Transformational Leadership Score

Num

ber o

f Offi

cers

This distribution shows quite a long tail with scores down as low as 44. Roughly one in seven officers score less than 85 (or less than one standard deviation below the mean), whilst around one in eleven scored more than 115 (or more than one standard deviation above the mean). The psychological outcome variables in the questionnaire help to decipher what this means in practice. As mentioned earlier, ten of the questions in the officer/staff questionnaire survey were about the self-reported psychological outcomes on the member of staff of the line manager’s style of leadership. These outcomes included, for example, raising the staff member’s motivation to achieve, having a positive effect on their commitment to the job, increasing their satisfaction and enabling them to achieve beyond their expectations. The officers were asked to say whether they strongly agreed, agreed, slightly agreed, slightly disagreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed that the positive outcome applied to them. Table 4.2 shows, for each psychological outcome in turn, the numbers of line managers for whom these respective responses were given. Those ticking ‘don’t know’ are omitted from the table.

23

Table 4.2: Numbers of officers overall who agreed or disagreed with particular statements about the effect their line manager’s behaviour had on them (N = 1066)

For those who ‘slightly disagreed’, their response might simply be regarded as indicating the lack of a potential positive benefit. For those who ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’, the line manager may, in fact, be having the opposite effect in the area concerned. The pattern of responses, when broken down by line managers’ rank and role was similar to the findings for overall transformational leadership score, with Tutor Constables tending to have the most positive impact (see Appendix E for details). Some of the key evidence on how police leadership impacts on performance comes from the relationship between particular leadership behaviours and particular psychological outcomes for subordinates. There were very high correlations between the scale scores and the answers to the psychological impact questions, ranging from .63 to .88. This means that the scale scores were all very good predictors of the psychological outcomes. The scale score which had the strongest relationship to the psychological outcomes was ‘Genuine concern for others’ well-being and development’. Scores on this scale correlated above 0.85 for seven of the ten psychological outcomes. This means that if a line manager scores very highly on ‘Genuine concern for others’ well-being and development’ then their direct reports are very likely to agree that he/she:

• behaves in a manner which has a positive effect on my commitment to do the job;

• behaves in a manner which has a positive effect on my self-confidence;

• behaves in a manner which raises my sense of fulfillment for my job;

• leads and behaves in such a way that increases my job satisfaction;

• manages and behaves in a manner that increases my self-esteem;

• has a leadership style that increases my commitment to the organisation; and

• acts in a manner that enables me to achieve beyond my expectations. Of course the reverse is also true - if a line manager does not show ‘Genuine concern for others’ well-being and development’ then their direct reports are very likely to disagree that these statements apply to their line manager.

Slightlyagree

Agree Stronglyagree

Acts in a manner that enables me to achievebeyond my expectations

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Slightlydisagree

Reduces my job-related stress by his/herapproach to leadershipLeads and behaves in such a way thatincreases my job satisfactionManages and behaves in a manner thatincreases my self-esteemHas a leadership style that increases mycommitment to the organisation

Manages and leads in a way which I find verysatisfyingBehaves in a manner which has a positiveeffect on my commitment to do the jobBehaves in a manner which has a positiveeffect on my self-confidenceBehaves in a manner which raises my senseof fulfilment for my job

27119010064

331 143

96285

85 107 143 226

2491339668

339 145

149344

82 104 149 224

255175109102

340 160

116278

75 72 152 248

113 247 376 192

6076

65 64

209376199132

128 204 338 203

Behaves in a way that raises my motivation toachieve

73 101 108 218 364 197

85 106

24

These results show clear links between leadership style and various important impacts on the staff being managed. Another outcome (subtly different from the ones listed above) which might have been worth recording would have been whether officers agreed that their line manager added value to their attempts to meet organisational objectives. Some of the officers who gave low ratings for their line managers’ behaviour or impact may themselves have been poor performers and have been rating their line manager unfairly. However, the repertory grid interviews showed that officers were generally looking for leaders who challenged poor behaviour and performance, rather than ones who gave them an easy time. If an initially positive attitude had deteriorated over time then this might, in itself, be regarded as a failure of leadership. Certainly, if their responses accurately reflect what the officers thought about their line managers, then they are relevant, since it is on the basis of these beliefs that the officer will respond to their line manager and these feelings could affect their morale and job performance. The high correlations between the scale scores and the answers to the psychological impact questions show that the scores which officers achieve on these scales can be used to confidently predict what impact these officer will be having on their subordinates. In other words, the scale scores have important meanings for police officers and police staff.

25

5. How can police leadership improve? Key findings The research evidence collated and presented in this report has provided information on the leadership sought by staff and police authorities and the impact of current police leadership on staff, and has set out possible links to customer satisfaction and organisational outcomes. The key findings are as follows: • Whilst leadership is widely believed and expected to have an important impact on

employee attitudes towards their work and on motivation and performance, a clear shared understanding of what leadership behaviours are effective in the police service and hence of how leadership can be improved, has been lacking.

• In broad terms, officers saw effective leadership as consisting of ‘Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and to supporting staff to achieve this’, ‘Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour’, ‘Enabling, valuing and developing staff’ and ‘ Having relevant knowledge and skills’.

• Fifty-three different behaviours were identified by police officers as being related to effective leadership. Fifty of these behaviours were found to match closely with a style of leadership known as ‘transformational leadership’.

• Leaders who displayed transformational leadership behaviours had a number of positive effects on their subordinates' attitudes to their work.

• Police authority members regard staff morale and motivation as key to delivery and look to chief officers to have a positive impact in this area.

• Many of the qualities which police authority members said were most difficult to assess reliably in candidates for senior leadership roles can be identified as transformational qualities, such as the ability to relate to, and motivate their subordinates.

• The repertory grid study generated reports of a large number of negative behaviours at every rank. Many of these negative behaviours tended to go together in the same leaders, and most of the 150 interviewees referenced at least one leader who displayed multiple negative behaviours.

• Indicators of psychological impact in the survey of 1066 police officers and staff demonstrated that most line managers were having at least some positive effect on their staff. However, on each of these indicators, responses showed that between one in four and one in three line managers were not having the potential possible impact.

Conclusions Leadership is obviously not the only factor which affects morale but it is clearly appropriate for leaders to have a positive rather than a negative effect on the morale of the staff they manage. The findings of this study suggest that leadership behaviours described as ‘transformational’ should be provided by every police leader who has direct line management responsibility for other staff. Those leaders who are not having the positive impacts shown to be associated with transformational leadership may be having a damaging effect on the motivation and morale of the staff they manage and possibly on the quality and efficiency of the service as a result. Whereas all police staff could probably improve in terms of having a transformational approach, this seems less of a priority than addressing the problem posed by those leaders who show no sign of being transformational or those who are actually damaging morale and performance. There is a strong case, in a continually changing environment, for ensuring attention is directed to where it is most needed. Also, if the changes which are likely to have most impact are addressed first, the cost of this might be offset by significant gains in morale and performance.

26

Where police leaders are already having a positive impact on their subordinates, it would be helpful to understand what might have influenced them, whether similar factors could be made to impact on others, and how these ‘positive’ leaders could be used to best effect in helping to improve leadership across the board - perhaps by involving them in training and/or mentoring. However, it needs to be borne in mind that training alone will not be sufficient to deliver appropriate leadership. Course participants in leadership training courses at Centrex and elsewhere have, for many years, discussed different leadership styles, but this needs to be backed up by clear statements from forces about what kind of leadership is expected and these standards need to be effectively enforced if a real improvement in leadership standards is to be achieved. The National Competencies Framework and National Occupational Standards, which are beginning to impact on human resource issues within forces, will help considerably in defining how police officers should behave (and not behave) when carrying out their duties. The way in which officers carry out their duties inevitably has an impact on their subordinates and ensuring that this impact is a positive one is the essence of effective leadership. The framework already reflects many of the requirements of a transformational approach to leadership and has the capacity to be further developed over time. Clear statements of expectations cannot guarantee better leadership, however, unless they are effectively embedded in the functioning of selection, appraisal and development systems, and this will not be a simple task. Staff appraisal, for example, has been present in the police service, in various forms, for some years and yet the findings of this research suggest it has not been universally successful in eradicating poor leadership. Nonetheless, there was a strong feeling from those interviewed for this study that the situation needed to be improved and that some way needed to be found to radically change a situation they felt had been endured for too long. It may be that 360 degree appraisal, in which all officers are assessed by officers above and below them in the chain, will provide a promising way forward. Any new human resource management systems resulting from attempts to improve leadership need to be implemented in an integrated rather than piecemeal fashion. Police authority members, for example, found their current selection procedures did not allow them to reliably assess how candidates for the most senior ranks would interact with their colleagues. However, this might equally well apply to selection at all levels within the police service and there might well be some advantage in seeking a more general solution to the problem. These efficiency considerations are particularly important in view of the fact that to accomplish the changes necessary will require a considerable investment of effort and resources. Consistency across forces would also be a desirable aim in the medium term, although the devising and testing of potential solutions should not be unduly constrained until there is strong evidence for the superiority of a particular solution. There are factors within police culture which may impede progress. In other sectors, it has been found that transformational behaviour tends to be more common amongst female leaders than male leaders. If this points to a significant gender bias then it could impose some practical difficulties in taking this agenda forwards; currently, only about 19 per cent of officers in the service, and only about ten per cent of the ranks above constable, are female. The hypothesis was not tested for the police population because the samples of males and females were not strictly representative but it was encouraging to find that transformational behaviour was not solely confined to female police officers. Police leadership is ultimately about ensuring that individuals, the community and the state get the best that is reasonably possible from the human and other resources which are available to pursue the goals of policing. Hence the question of what is the most appropriate form of police leadership has to be answered by discovering which form of police leadership has the greatest positive impact on police performance. This, in turn, means that the leadership question is closely tied up with the question of ‘what is police performance and how should it be measured?’

27

The Police Performance Assessment Framework (PPAF), being developed by the Police Standards Unit in consultation with police stakeholders, will be trying to understand or explain relative force performance by looking at measures of force activity alongside force performance indicators. The idea is to see whether part of the explanation for differing performance might lie in differing amounts of effort being applied to particular areas. However, whilst simply carrying out an action might have an impact on performance outcomes, whether or not the activity was carried out reflectively, conscientiously, and with enthusiasm might have an even more marked impact. In acknowledgement of this fact, it might be argued that measures reflecting the kind of leadership provided, and/or the impact which this is having on officers’ motivation and engagement, if not actually included within the framework, should be considered alongside it. This research did not seek to compare models of police leadership or take an all-embracing view, instead it provides some provisional evidence for a link between providing a style of leadership known as ‘transformational’ within the police service and achieving improved police performance. The research findings have demonstrated that what staff and police authorities seek from police leaders fits with a style of leadership known as ‘transformational’ and that this style has value in improving employee attitudes. Research in other sectors has shown that there is a link between positive employee attitudes, higher customer satisfaction, and better service performance. The evidence for such a link in policing has yet to be sought, but given that the transformational model was first found in other contexts, and has been shown to have relevance in a policing context, the idea seems worth testing further. Recommendations • Key stakeholders, including members of the Police Leadership Development Board

(PLDB), the new justice sector skills organisation ‘Skills for Justice’ and the National Police Leadership Centre at Centrex should begin to develop an evidence-based model, detailing the key elements of effective police leadership.

• The PLDB has already endorsed the need for transformational leadership throughout the service and has commissioned learning and development packages from Centrex, for all staff up to Chief Officer and equivalent grades, which take into account the principles of transformational leadership. These training designs and leadership development processes should be installed both locally and nationally as soon as possible.

• All recruitment and selection processes for the service, from Constable to Chief Officer and from CID to community beat, need to be able to distinguish those candidates who are able to have a positive impact on subordinates through the kind of leadership they provide.

• The PLDB should develop a strategic plan for ensuring appropriate police leadership standards throughout the service. This plan should detail how to tackle poor leadership and use positive role models to best advantage.

28

References Adair, J. (1983) Effective Leadership. Gower. Adsit, D.J., London, M., Crom, S. and Jones, D. (1996) Relationships between Employee Attitudes, Customer Satisfaction and Departmental Performance. Journal of Management Development, Volume 15, No 1 Page 62-75. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2000a) Heaven can wait. Health Service Journal, 12 October 2000, 26-9. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2000b) The Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant validation study. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 21 June 2000, 280-296. Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2001) The Development of a new Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 74, 1-27. Barber, L., Hayday, S. and Bevan, S. (1999) From People to Profits: The HR link in the service-profit chain. Institute for Employment Studies, Report 355. Bass, B.M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B.M. (1990) From Transactional to Transformational Leadership - Learning to Share the Vision. Organisational Dynamics, 18, pp 19-31. Bass, B.M. (1998) Current Developments in Transformational Leadership: Research and Applications. Invited address to the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, August. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994) Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Burbeck, E.L. (1987) The validity of the selection interview for recruits to the Metropolitan Police Force, PhD thesis. London: University College. Cabinet Office (2001) Strengthening Leadership in the Public Sector. London: Cabinet Office. Condon, Sir Paul (1997) The leadership challenge. Address given to the Strategic Command Course, April 1997, Bramshill: The Police Staff College. Geyer, A.L.J. and Steyrer, J.M. (1998) Transformational leadership and objective performance in banks. Applied Psychology, 47(3) p397-420. Hater, J.J. and Bass. B.M. (1988) Superiors’ evaluations and subordinates’ perceptions of transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(1) p695-702, cited in Bass, B.M. (1998) Transformational leadership – Industrial, Military and Educational Impact. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hinkin, T.R. and Tracey, J.B. (1994) Transformational leadership in the hospitality industry. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1) p49-63. HMIC (1999a) Managing Learning - A Study of Police Training. HMIC HMIC (1999b) Police Integrity - Securing and Maintaining Public Confidence. Swindon Press. Home Office (1999) Police Training - The Way Forward - June 1999. Home Office (2001) The Police Reform White Paper.

29

Home Office (2002) National Policing Plan 2003-6. Howell, J.M. and Avolio, D.J. (1991) Predicting Consolidated Unit Performance: Leadership ratings, locus of control and support for innovation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Miami, Florida. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Lester, C. (2000) Motivational change among police constables: A case study of the Metropolitan Police Service, PhD thesis, London School of Economics, 2000. Rucci, A.J., Kim, S.P. and Quinn, R.T. (1998) The Employee-Customer-Profit Chain at Sears. Harvard Business Review, p83-97. Sinclair, S.D. (2000) Importance of work relations and personality to morale, work performance and wellbeing among police officers. Dissertation, PhD thesis, University of Aberdeen, 2000. Vick, C. (2000) Aspects of police leadership. Police research and management, Summer 2000, pp. 3-14. Yukl, G. (1994) Leadership in Organisations. Prentice Hall.

30

Appendix A: Police leadership development Years of service - Rank - TARGET RANK - CONSTABLE Male/female - Ethnic group - Triad sequence When it comes to the practice of

leadership, what do the pair have

in common? (SCORE 1)

1 2 3 4 5 6 ID When it comes to the practice of leadership, how is the other person by contrast ? (SCORE 5)

Most Important Constructs

1 2 3

31

Appendix B: The categories into which the leadership constructs elicited from police officers fell Main category Sub-category Sub-sub-category Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and to supporting staff to achieve this

Being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community and to supporting staff to achieve this

Caring/having appropriate priorities/puts other interests before own

Committed to achieving a high quality service, serving the community well, and ensuring a good image for policing in the community/seeks continuous improvement

Committed to supporting the achievement of organisational objectives/takes considered risks for the good of the organisation Shows active interest in supporting front-line policing/gets involved and takes control when appropriate

Displaying high personal standards and challenging poor behaviour

Displaying high personal standards and challenging poor behaviour

Setting and maintaining standards

Challenges poor performance Challenges inappropriate behaviour Displays consistently high personal standards/sets a good example to staff Displays consistently high professional standards/does not use bullying/sets a good example to staff Displays enthusiasm and energy for tasks/has a positive 'can do' attitude/prepared to take the initiative and give a lead when appropriate/pro-active

approach Demonstrates follow-through/determined/persevering/reliable/meets deadlines Being consistently fair Being consistently fair Open and honest Consistent – no favourites Consistent – no mood swings

Making best use of staff skills Valuing and developing staff contributions

Valuing and developing staff/team player/displays humility

Knows and utilises the skills of staff, uses effective delegation, trusts staff, encourages initiative Shows interest in and acknowledges the work of staff, shows respect for individuals Develops Individuals/shares knowledge and experience with colleagues/guides/coaches/mentors/uses PDR effectively Develops effective team-working Fosters a learning non-blaming environment Supporting staff in achieving objectives

Supporting and encouraging staff/creates positive comfortable working environment/helps staff to provide effective high quality service

Generates support from community and from within police service using effective networking Provides effective and timely decisions when requested Provides useful guidance when requested Takes account of staff welfare issues/compassionate and understanding/empathetic/looks to understand why targets not met/ Takes account of staff welfare in deploying staff Provides physical and psychological back-up in difficult situations Represents staff concerns to higher authority Maintains visibility/interacts with staff/stays accessible

32

Accepts responsibility for staff, tasks and outcomes Avoids making unreasonable demands on staff Provides adequate stability/not blowing in the wind Providing clear communication Providing effective communication Provides clear direction/provides clear future vision/lives the vision/ensures common purpose/seen as useful source of advice and guidance Consultative/encourages participation/listens to others' views/accepts negative feedback/values contributions Approachable on any topic Effective negotiating style - internal and external Disseminates information effectively and appropriately

Having the personal professional competence to be able to support followers

Having professional competence Professional competence

Good knowledge and skills base/sufficient breadth and depth of experience/has the confidence and respect of colleagues/credible in role/seen as operationally competent

Inspires confidence in command and control situations Makes effective assessment of problems and solutions/politically aware/sees wider issues/takes broader view/has sound judgement Competent in both strategic and tactical modes Able to communicate effectively with all ranks and members of the public. Has the common touch Having personal qualities which add further value to the support given to followers

Personal qualities

Has courage of own convictions. Stands up for beliefs Has courage in the face of conflict. Prepared to deal with anything. Calm under pressure High intellectual capacity. Can deal with complexity Flexible. Receptive to new ideas. Adaptable. Confident to challenge tradition. Able to motivate through personal qualities/has charisma/presence Organized. Effectively manages time. Prioritises effectively. Visionary/innovative/creative

33

Appendix C: Full verbatim list of the constructs, split into positive and negative behaviours, by category and target rank Table C1: Constructs relating to being committed to achieving a high quality service to the community, and to supporting staff to achieve this Chief Officers Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Ability to scan the environment for public, organisation and staff

Ability to scan environment for self-interest 1

Highly committed to their staff and the task Minimal commitment to staff and task - enough to get by

1

Concern for the human impact of decisions you make

Putting the interests of self before others 1

Shows consistent integrity in service delivery Erring towards self-interest vs. public service 1 Tried to do the right thing for the constabulary and the public

Do the right thing for himself 1

Committed to delivering a high quality service Less visibly committed 1 Maintaining public service ethos Internal service value promotion 1 Committed to both the local area and the constabulary

Not committed to local area 1

Awareness of the organisational processes and achievements

Not interested in achievement - not seen as important

1

Focus on delivery and results Less committed to delivery or vision 1 Takes considered risks for the benefit of the organisation

Constrained decision-making style (regulation)

1

Awareness of operational environment Lack of awareness 1 Too little interest in operational realities Inappropriate interest in operational detail -

too involved 3

Valuing and supporting those at the coal-face Worked at distance - saw staff as a production unit

1

Superintendents Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Concerned for the whole person Concerned solely for self 1 Driven by serving the public Driven by self-interest and self-progression 1 Focusing on team success Focused on personal success/fear of personal

failure 2

High level of energy focused in the right direction

High level of energy focused in the wrong direction

2

Placing the long-term needs of the organisation before their own needs

Self-interest priority 2

Prioritising staff needs above own needs Unaware 1 Seeks corporate goals Seeks personal goals 3 Strategic planning for the organisation Looking ahead to avoid trouble for self/make

mischief 1

Time for people Puts own priorities before other people 1 Active in promoting positive image and profile of service

Fails to capitalise on opportunities to promote service image

1

34

Can bring about change and impose own vision

Sits there and manages

1

Care and concern for public needs Public needs get in the way 1 Commitment to service Lack of commitment 1 Drives for improvement through personal and team innovation

Negative about change 1

Innovative, forward-scanning - awareness of business environment

Focused purely on what will affect them 1

Motivated to change for better performance Avoids change - change is difficult 1 Show enthusiasm for the service Does things if they need to do them 1 Clear support and direction for dept aims Apparent lack of interest in aims of division 2 Effective/produces good results Ineffective - lack of bravery 1 Will remain corporate once decision reached Prepared to breach corporately agreed

decisions on basis of personal conviction 1

Instinctively seeks to take operational control Frightened to take operational control 1 Knows what real issues are for staff No free flow of information from ground up 1 Trying to correctly interpret what staff need to increase job fulfillment

Not bothering to interpret what staff need to be fulfilled

1

Willingness to communicate directly with staff and incidents

Unwillingness to become directly involved with staff and incidents

2

Wanting to know what's going on within their part of the organisation

Absorbed in his own little world 1

Works amongst and visible to the practitioners (Bobbies) - normal practice

Exceptional practice to work amongst and visible to practitioners

1

Inspectors Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Corporate mission Personal mission 1 Honesty and integrity Deviousness, dishonesty, personal agenda 2 Puts something back into the organisation Own agenda in respect of promotion 1 Put the organisation first More committed to own agenda 1 Worked hard in role for benefit of service Worked hard in role for career ambition 1 Working for good of service Working mainly for own benefit (drive) 1 Developed their specialist knowledge whilst in unit

Ignored, didn't want to learn 1

Focused on benefits to the community Focused on benefits to self 1 Genuine hardworking committed individuals Portrays an air of being busy but isn't 1 High public service ethos Internal focus 1 Seeks opportunities to maximise contribution to organisation

Does what's required 1

Have a desire to make a difference to the organisation and its staff

Cynical 1

Belief and commitment in force objectives No true belief and commitment in force objectives

1

Not afraid to make a mistake Definitely afraid to make a mistake 1 Direction face-to-face /motivation/reassurance Distance learning 2 Finger on the pulse Not aware - lack of interest 1 Hands-on approach - keeps in touch with policing

Completely out of touch with policing on streets 1

Helpful in operational policing as they understand rural policing

Lack of understanding of rural policing 1

Leading from the front Lack of involvement 1 Leading from the front Non-interventionist - lets it all happen around

them 2

35

Look after interests of front line Ignore realities of front-line policing 1 Operational need-based More emphasis on the financial budget 1 Realised the value of the basics Lack of concern for the basics 2 Seeks to make a positive contribution to front-line policing

Less interested in front-line policing 1

Show interest in officers' welfare through attending scenes

Not showing interest in finding out about welfare

2

Show interest in work re: attending scenes Not showing any interest in finding out about officer's role

2

Takes time to support officers out on patrol Does not appear to take an interest in supporting patrol officers

1

Undertake menial tasks to assist their staff Deem some tasks are beneath them 2 Visits my workplace willingly Never comes to my workplace willingly 1 Willingness to get involved operationally Less willing to get involved operationally 2 Wouldn't expect others to do something they wouldn't do themselves

Expect others to do jobs they are not prepared to do

1

Sergeants Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Ambition and promotion Happy to stay where he is 2 Committed to organisation and staff Selfish individual 1 Demonstrates that they value their staff by putting their staff first

Don't demonstrate the value they place in their staff - put themselves first

2

Interest in work Self-interest 1 Totally genuine Look after themselves more than others 1 Puts interests of service first Puts own interests first 1 Advancement on merit Self-advancement at expense of staff 1 Commitment to serving community via the team based upon pure motives

Selfish motives, prevents cohesion of team 1

Concerned with quality Concerned about performance indicators rather than quality

1

Goes the extra mile on a matter of profess. pride w/out the drive of extra remuneration

Will not put themselves out to go the extra mile unless directed/additional remuneration

2

Proactively encourages positive team performance

Reactive approach to police work 1

Seeks success for the team Accepts success by default 1 Clear about goals/objectives of the organisation and is able to adopt them

Is aware of goals, but does not or is unable to put them into effect

2

Faithful to organisation Not faithful 1 Seeks to achieve organisational objectives Lack of responsibility for the organisation 1 Ability to understand the sergeant and constable role to gain credibility

Lack of ability to understand roles leading to a lack of credibility

1

Desire to ensure that operational incidents are conducted properly

Empowered too much - did not want to be involved in operational incidents

1

Frequently leads operationally by example Infrequently leads operationally by example 2 In touch with officers and their work Not interested in front-line work 1 Leading by example when appropriate Remote supervision 1 Leading from the front Leading from their desk 1 Leads by example Isolated from team 2 More assertive at directing staff at operational incidents

Less assertive at directing staff at operational incidents

1

Physical presence/visible leadership/being there

Not being there when needed 1

Takes control of situation when required Tends to avoid difficult situations 1 Taking control when necessary Stand back 1

36

Willingness to be involved with all aspects of front-line police

Prefer to manage from a distance 1

Willingness to command Fails to take appropriate command 1 Constables Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Desire for respect outweighs need for popularity

Desire to be popular outweighs other considerations

2

Not motivated by financial reward Financially driven 3 Ambition for the service Personal ambition 3 Go out of their way to help and advise public and colleagues

Just do what's required 2

Strives to do best in all situations Easy life 1 Have interest of team Selfish 1 More aware of the extent to which they should be involved

Can become over or under involved in particular tasks

1

Readily takes control in a situation Stands back - lets others lead 1 To take the lead without antagonising colleagues

Doesn't take the lead 1

37

Table C2: Constructs relating to displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour Chief Officers Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Willingness to confront difficult issues e.g. poor performance

Fails to confront and tackle difficult issues 2

Consistently displays high personal standards Did not consistently display high personal standards

2

Demonstrates integrity The end too often justifies the means 1 'Can do' attitude Tends to see problems rather than solutions 1 Demonstrating enthusiasm for current tasks Not demonstrably enthusiastic 1 Takes on more projects and is hands-on in their development

Don't encourage colleagues to involve them in detail of projects

2

Enthusiastic and committed Limited areas of commitment and enthusiasm 1 High energy and enthusiasm More reserved style 1 Managing the delivery of change Poor at implementing change programmes i.e.

making things happen 1

Drive and determination - good follow through Weak follow through - loses interest 1 Genuine in all you do False front 2 Integrity Lack of integrity 1 Clear - visible integrity Less transparent belief systems 1 Open and genuine Not convinced as to honesty 1 Openness and honesty Undermining, sabotaging, encouraging factions 2 Transparency and consistency Unpredictable, secretive 1 Honesty Unclear motives 1 Respect for all staffs' contribution Favouritism 1 Superintendents Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Always challenges unfairness and injustice Failing to accord importance to issues of

unfairness or injustice 2

Expect high standards Doesn't push for high standards 2 Has earned credibility and respect at all levels - high standards

Lacks credibility and respect - double standards

1

Set and maintain high/consistent standards in all areas

Inconsistent in relation to standards 1

Sound professional moral values Inconsistent value system 1 Wouldn't allow inadequate/unethical behaviour Allows inadequate/unethical behaviour 1 Consistently high personal standards Variable personal standards 1 Demonstrates high personal standards Doesn't demonstrate high personal standards 1 High personal/moral values - high integrity Low personal/moral values - low integrity 1 Transparent value system Less confident about personal values 1 Confidentiality Breach of confidentiality 1 Energy, enthusiasm, willingness Tired, seems disinterested 1 Personal drive and energy Inactive and lack of energy 1 Proactive Reactive 1 Proactive and creative Flat and unaware 1 A pragmatic approach to the business of the mgmt. team and driving things forward

Failing to drive things forward 1

Always follows-up/checks instructions Never follows-up/checks instructions 1 Clarity of purpose Over emphasis on task initiation without follow-

up 1

38

Effective in single focus situations Less effective in single focus situations 1 Making things happen Letting things drift 2 Show interest in the follow-through of ideas Bringing in new ideas but not seeing it through 1 Trustworthy (role/relationships/delivery) Requires monitoring 1 Committed to fairness when resolving disputes Has strong personal views about how disputes

should be resolved 1

Being open about values Private values 1 Transparent Devious 2 Genuine honesty Surface-deep honesty 1 Honest feedback Disguising the feedback 1 Passionate and personal communication Measured 2 Open communication with no hidden agendas Secretive style with personal agendas 1 Positive, practical, meaningful Gives political answers rather than meaningful

ones 1

Sincere Insincere 1 Straight talking and not talking behind your back

Duplicitous - saying different things behind your back

1

Trustworthy Double-crosses and lacks ethical standards and integrity

1

Consistent behaviour in all situations Unpredictable behaviour 1 Inspectors Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Actively maintains high professional/personal standards

Allowing things to slip 1

Demands high standards from staff Lower expectations from staff 1 Demonstrates consistently high standards Unpredictable/inconsistent 1 Maintaining discipline and clear standards Lack of discipline 1 Maintains discipline on shift and resolves discipline issues

Relaxed attitude to discipline - not dealing with issues

1

Not afraid to ask questions about what's going on

Don't ask questions about what's going on 1

Prepared to challenge issues Not prepared to challenge 1 Sets high standards/goals for staff Satisfied with less challenging standards 1 Setting high standards for team No standards 2 Challenges under-performance appropriately Doesn't challenge under-performance 1 Challenging ineffective performance Lacks i.e. letting things go 1 Challenging inappropriate behaviour Avoids difficult situations 1 Sets high standards for self Don't maintain high personal standards 1 Setting high standards for self No standards 2 Appropriate delivery of solutions Inappropriate delivery of solutions 1 Appropriate imposition of will Inappropriate imposition of will/bullying 1 Leads by example Imposes will by rank/bullying 1 Maintains professional image Doesn't meet professional expectations 1 Retains the balance of the professional relationship

Over familiarity - gets in the way of authority 1

Professional standards Accepting lower standards 1 Energy, initiative, willingness to change Lack of initiative, reactionary 1 Enthusiasm for the task Indifference to the task 1 Inspirational enthusiasm Laissez-Faire 2 Industrious Lazy 1 Personal energy - being dynamic Listless, lethargic 1 Seeks out and addresses problem Waiting for prompt and guidance 2 Visible enthusiasm and commitment Visible enthusiasm and commitment 0

39

Commitment/determination to win/succeed/results driven

Laissez-faire/tired/worn out 1

High drive and determination to succeed (operational)

Low achievers (Ops) 1

More trustworthy Untrustworthy 1 Resolving issues as quickly as possible Does not resolve issues as quickly as possible

(no chasing) 1

Steady and reliable in all functions Needs closer monitoring 2 Trustworthy Unreliable 1 Ability to remain honest and true in the way you deal with people

Pretending to be honest when in fact you are not being

1

Open and honest Closed style of management 1 Genuinely honest Walks the walk 1 Open and honest with colleagues Less open and honest 1 Openness Remote 2 Perceived to be honest, open, telling whole truth

Perceived to have hidden agendas 1

To have integrity Lack of integrity 1 Transparent, honest, up front Manipulative 2 Genuine in all company Two-faced dependent on company 1 Balanced and fair Biased and outwardly shows favouritism 1 Fair and even-handed with colleagues Tend to 'play' favourites amongst colleagues 1 Consistent Unpredictable 2 Sergeants Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Always challenges inappropriate behaviour and performance

Does not challenge inappropriate behaviour and performance

1

Clear expectation on professional standards Unclear expectations on required standards 2 Demonstrates high standards Has low standards 1 Demonstrating high standards Does not demonstrate high standards 1 Engenders high standards of service Slipshod standards of service 1 Ethical and professional Unethical 1 High personal and professional standards Low standards 1 High standards Low standards 1 Prepare to set and stand by standards Lack of appropriate standards 2 Setting high standards Lower expectations 1 Won't stand for any nonsense Buries head in the sand 2 Challenging poor performance Avoids conflict 1 Appropriately and sensitively challenges and deals with poor/unacceptable performance

Don't effectively challenge or deal with poor/unacceptable performance

2

Appropriate morals and values Lacking in morality 1 High personal integrity giving rise to high standards

Low integrity giving rise to low standards 1

Appropriate attention to detail Lack of attention to detail 3 No personal agendas Create pressure to conform to their personal

agendas 1

Doing things right is more important than getting things done

The end justifies the means 1

Presented a professional image as a police officer - good role model

Less professional approach 1

Professional integrity Lack of integrity 1 Behaves appropriately Undermining through inappropriate use of

humour 1

40

Enthusiastic Disinterested 2 Enthusiastic, positive attitude Defensive/negative attitude and behaviour 1 Hard working and competent Lazy 1 interest in work Apathy to role 1 Enthusiastic and committed to job Just a job 1 Very directive in developing strategies for the shift

Not proactive in developing strategies for the shift

2

Proactive approach Reactive approach to policing 1 Take responsibility Stands back 1 Willingness to identify problems and tackle them

Ignore problems unless presented to them 1

Able to implement and follow through actions Not able to implement and ensure action is taken

1

Reliability Unreliable 1 Taking ownership for and are reliable for task identification and completion

Does the bare minimum to survive w/out attracting negative appraisal/comment evidence

1

Always fair and impartial Prone to unreasonable/unfair treatment 1 Fair Unequal treatment 1 Just Unequal treatment 1 Can be trusted to be open and honest Can't be trusted 1 Trust to be honest Don't trust to be honest 1 Honesty/trust Untrustworthy 1 Personal honesty Bull-shitting 1 Someone I felt I could confide in and was loyal to all

Wouldn't trust them 'as far as I could throw them'

1

All round good people skills Selective - had favourites 1 Treated all staff with fairness Favouritism in team/staff 1 Displays fair and equal attitude regardless of other personal interests

Use favouritism for their own needs 1

Always even-handed and calm Unknown quantity - depended on mood 1 Consistent behaviour towards staff Moody, unpredictable 1 Constables Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Sets a good example Doesn't practise what they preach 1 Challenges unprofessional service delivery Does not recognise or does not challenge

unprofessional service delivery 1

Challenges inappropriate behaviour (articulate others views)

Avoids confrontation 1

Challenges inappropriate behaviour in colleagues

Does not recognise or does not challenge 1

High self-control, composure, self-discipline Lower level of self-discipline, control, composure

1

Always promotes and follows best practice Does not consistently follow best practice 1 Conducts self in professional manner with colleagues

Don't always demonstrate that they value colleagues

1

Conducts self in professional manner with public

Disinterested in public 1

Displays professional image Egotistical image 1 Does not covertly or overtly bully Has bullying traits 1 Good attention to detail Poor presentation of self and work 1 Does not use bullying tactics Maintains position in group by bullying tactics 1 Perceived as setting high ethical standards for self and others

Perceived as regarding ethical standard for self and others to be more negotiable

1

41

Setting a good example to others with less service

Setting a poor example to other officers 1

100% enthusiastic about their job Less enthusiastic 1 First to take control Allow officers to take control before themselves 1 Can do - makes things happen - achieves the task

Cannot do - fence-builders 1

Commitment to task No interest in task 1 Competent in role and enthusiastic Lack of enthusiasm 1 Demonstrates a positive approach to their work Negative outlook on the job 1 Demonstrates enthusiasm for work Spends more time avoiding work than doing 2 Enthusiasm Lack of interest 1 Enthusiastic and self-motivated to achieve results

Lack of motivation and direction 2

Good response when given a particular responsibility

Less good response 2

Very productive and keen to take on tasks Lazy and avoids work 2 Motivated to be effective for own satisfaction Will do the minimum required to carry out their

role 1

Take effective action on their own initiative Waits to be told what to do 1 Very positive Disaffected 2 Well motivated Lazy 1 Willing to take on responsibility Thinks others needs the experience more than

them 1

100% trustworthy Less trustworthy 2 Completes job leaving no stone unturned Cuts corners 2 Preparedness to go the extra mile (volunteers) Preparedness to do what is expected but no

more, needs prompting 2

Reliability Unreliable 1 Trustworthy Couldn't be trusted to do what is required 1 Open-minded and fair when dealing with others Inconsistent when dealing with others 1 Ease in sharing emotions Difficulty in sharing emotions 1 Honesty Not genuine 2 Integrity/honesty Not sure I could trust 1 Know where you stand with him/her Never know where you stand with him/her 1 What you see is what you get Stabs you in the back 1 Would trust them Would not trust them 1

42

Table C3: Constructs relating to enabling, valuing and developing staff Chief Officers Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Humility Arrogance 1 Open team-player Autocratic/directive 1 Delegates properly Interfering too soon 1 Given opportunity to make a mistake Less trusting of staff 1 Seeks varied contribution Limited contribution sought 1 Valued staff and used and enhanced your skills Just gave tasks 1 Acknowledging the good work of others Giving little praise to others 1 Valuing and rewarding staff Excluding and ignoring 1 Development of staff - especially high potential Gives little attention to staff development 2 Build effective teams Build teams 1 Promoting organisational learning Blaming and disregarding experience 1 Support officers making genuine mistakes Avoid blame themselves 1 Create a positive and enjoyable work environment

Staff do not feel valued 1

Facilitating leadership through strength of team Directive style as against facilitative leadership 2 Achieves by bringing out the best in people Fails to achieve because alienates people 2 Valuing people Limited people skills 1 Makes people feel cared for and supported Remote 1 People person Damaging people skills 1 Effective external communicator Poor at communicating in external arenas -

poor public speaking and media mgmt. 2

Ensure good support and understanding for police through effective networking

Gives less attention to networking 1

Ability to present a good image of the service in all situations

Fail to instill confidence in themselves as ambassadors for the service

1

Prepared to make courageous and timely decisions when required

Avoids making difficult decisions 1

Good decision making Avoids decision making 1 Will make appropriate decisions Shifts responsibility for decision making 1 Actions take account of personal impacts Ignores personal impact 1 Compassionate leader Dispassionate 1 Concern for others Not aware of the needs of others 2 Empathy for people Stiff 1 Fairness in treatment of others Disregard for people 1 Genuine interest in other people Self-centered 1 Looks to understand why targets not met Over-bearing 2 Willing to challenge and/or negotiate deadlines to ensure quality

Blind adherence to unrealistic deadlines even if it will inevitably impair quality

1

Accessibility Minimalist approach to people and paperwork 2 Accessible to those you lead Builds barriers to prevent access by others 2 Highly visible to workforce Invisible to the workforce 2 Markets presence effectively Unconscious of importance of presence 2 Visibility to organisation and stakeholders Not available not seen 2 Visibility Lack of visibility 1 Accepts personal responsibility Passes the buck 1 Accepts responsibility Evades/avoids/diverts responsibility 1 Willingness to judge what is achievable Unwilling to recognise practical constraints 2 Consistent decision making Blowing in the wind 1 Critical evaluation of new ideas - prioritisation 'Fadism' - poor prioritisation 1

43

Good communication skills Inability to communicate effectively 1 Able to communicate a clear vision Unable to communicate a clear vision 1 Clarity of communication in all contexts Inability to clearly convey meaning 1 Clear direction and guidance Less clarity in thinking and expression 1 Clear vision No clarity of vision 1 Communicates and lives the vision leading to clarity

Communication of vision is confused 1

Conveys direction Does not give a lead 1 Creates sense of vision Creates muddle 1 Focused, clear, calm communicator Non-communicator 1 Articulates clear vision Not or less evidence of clear vision thinking 1 Provide a clear vision for the force and individuals

Didn't communicate clearly what trying to achieve

1

Provide clear future direction for planning purposes (internal and external)

Limited future vision 1

Provides clarity for subordinates Fails to create clarity of what is required by staff

2

Take people with them to an agreed team goal Lack of direction to common goals 1 Facilitative/approachable Autocratic/dogmatic/strong 1 Communication skills Dogmatic 1 Consultative Certainty breeding arrogance 2 Feeling my opinion is relevant Feeling that my opinion is asked for but not

required 1

Flexible Self-opinionated/rigid 2 Will listen, very approachable, informal Not open-minded - disregards others' views 2 Facilitates shared decision making Takes decisions without consultation 2 Receptive Tendency to be unreceptive 1 Valued contributions Paying lip-service to contributions 1 Effective influencing and negotiating style Traditional directive style 1 Efficacious spread of messages and commands

Limited appreciation of the importance of being informed

1

Superintendents Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Awareness of personal knowledge irrespective of rank

Unrealistic expectation of knowledge that rank gives you

1

Laissez-faire Dictatorial 3 A proper sense of proportion about one's importance

Over-emphasis on self-importance 1

People-focused Task-focused 2 Accurate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of staff

Ignorant of strengths and weaknesses of staff (someone to carry out orders)

1

Allows empowerment Keeps control 1 Creates environment that encourages challenges

Stifles initiative 1

Delegate/trust Keeps decisions/power to themselves 1 Delegates appropriately Delegates inappropriately at times 1 Empowerment/trust Lack of empowerment/distrust (too hands-on) 1 Empowerment Fear of letting go - lack of confidence in

subordinates 2

Empowers staff Retains control 1 Encourages and supports staff initiatives Dismissive of subordinates' initiative 1 Encourages initiative and self-actualisation Doesn't know or care about initiative 1

Identify contributions which individuals can Inability to engage the inability in pursuit of the 1

44

make and engage them vision Know their staff and staff know them What staff - no interest 1 Matching abilities of staff to task appropriately No serious attempt to match abilities of staff to

tasks 1

Maximises contribution of team members Doesn't use team effectively 1 Promotes creativity as a legitimate component of traditional and future demands

Doesn't promote creativity as a legitimate component of traditional and future demands

1

Release appropriate control to promote innovation and initiative

Retain inappropriate control thereby stifling innovation and initiative

1

Encouraging creativity and innovation Stifling creativity and innovation 2 Welcome/acceptance of contribution others can provide

Depends on own ability 2

Mutual respect, common courtesy Takes respect for granted because of rank 1 Shows proactive interest in you Gives low priority to building relationships 1 Values individual contributions Dismissive of part played 1 Active encouragement of staff development to enable team to succeed

Apparent disinterest in developing subordinates because he did everything himself

1

Developing individuals skills and performance Fails to accord sufficient importance to the development of individuals

1

Giving appropriate positive feedback Never giving positive feedback 1 Looks for opportunities to develop staff No action to develop staff 1 Recognises potential in staff Over-emphasis on previous experience of staff 1 Trying to correctly interpret the abilities/skills to increase performance

Not bothering to try to interpret abilities/skills to increase performance

1

Use of effective methods to develop staff Use of less effective methods to develop staff 1 Developing the effectiveness of the mgmt. team

Fails to consider the development of the mgmt. Team

1

Effective teamwork Individualist 1 Acceptance that some error is inevitable Active search for errors 2 Tolerant of mistakes leading to learning Intolerant 2 Balances supportive/directive styles appropriately

Inflexible style for all situations 1

Effective methods used to motivate staff Less effective methods used to motivate staff 1 Fun Too serious 2 Generates positive energy Inconsistent source of energy 1 Effective at raising the profile of the force and generating support

Less committed to external networking 1

Works well with partner agencies Parochial 1 100% decisive in any situation Dithers - takes time to make decisions 3 Able to make difficult decisions Avoids making difficult decisions 1 Makes clear decisions under pressure Avoids decisions 1 Balances personal factors and organisational needs

Ignores the personal/organisation in some situations

1

Genuine warmth and empathy Purely functional 1 Maintaining professional balance Allowing empathy to override professional

balance 1

Natural caring style Mechanical 1 Sensitivity Lack of sensitivity 2 Uses rules and procedures sensibly and fairly Too flexible or too rigid in the use of rules and

procedures 1

Being there and supportive at difficult times Disinterested in operational or personal matters

1

Accessible, move around, linger, chat Inhibited, apparently ignores people, spends too much time in office

1

45

Visibility at important times Works more to own agenda 1 Visible and accessible Office-bound 1 Actively seeks responsibility for the organisation

Pretends to seek responsibility for the organisation

1

Be accountable by taking responsibility for actions and decisions

Pass the buck 1

Effective delegation and maintaining accountability

Delegate everything but take little accountability

1

Prepared to be unpopular Popularity at all costs 1 Retain ownership of issues and outcomes We are all to blame or we've all done very well 2 Taking responsibility for their decisions Seeking to blame others 1 Consideration Forceful 2 Clear idea and supporting action re: what needs to be done

Vagueness, lack of consistency, jumping about, no underlying thread

1

Ability to give clear direction Ambiguous direction 1 Articulates vision to every audience with clarity Less able to articulate vision with clarity 1 Articulating the vision More interested in completing tasks 1 Clear accountability Lack of role definition 1 Clear communication of instructions What instructions? 1 Communicates vision Communicates lack of vision for policing 1 Communicates vision Lacks vision 1 Egomaniac Could be more forceful 3 Re-focusing Lack of clarity 1 Structure and focus Less structured 2 Maintaining team cohesion through loyalty to common purpose

Allowing disloyalty to compromise team cohesion

1

Quality advice and guidance Wouldn't choose to seek their advice 1 Walks the talk Selling the product 1 Strategic and clear on the contribution of their unit

Focused on 'routine' day to day issues 1

Ability to work in/lead teams to gain max innovation/ideas from those involved

Less consultative and less willing to draw on ideas of others

1

Better two-way communication Good one-way communication 1 Consultative Isolated 2 Creating an atmosphere in which challenge is acceptable

Pretending to create an atmosphere in which challenge is acceptable

1

Consultative style Directive leadership style 2 Flexibility Not listening 2 Involvement of staff in decision making Lack of ownership by staff of decisions 1 Ability to compromise Lack of compromise 1 Encourages a questioning and evaluative decision-making style

Making decision for you 1

Open and encouraging participation Dinosaur autocratic style 2 Take into account other people's views when making decisions

Failing to listen to the views of others and making dogmatic decisions

1

Team have ownership of decision No ownership of decisions 1 More flexible approach to problems/issues Tend to rely on own professional judgement 2 Valuing the opinions and contributions of the Area Mgmt Team

Doesn't accord importance to the views of others or their contributions

1

Acts as sounding-board Untrusting 2 Confident would find time if necessary for my concerns

Would find time if available 1

Friendly and approachable Remote and unapproachable 1 Open and approachable People preferred to avoid contact 2 Able to motivate as group leader of public Able to influence opinion related to role 1

46

opinion contracts Share info with colleagues and subordinates Secretive - only sharing what he felt you should

know 2

Tell me what I need to know Tells me only when he thinks I need to know 1 Inspectors Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating More of a team player Isolate themselves from their colleagues 1 One of the boys Loner 2 Team player Sets themselves apart 2 Team players Uninvolved 2 Believe its important to know your staff Being task-focused 1 Fully supports officers' initiatives Less supportive 1 Gets the team involved in creative thinking Not receptive to creative thinking 1 Makes the best use of individual strengths and weaknesses

Takes less account of strengths and weaknesses in selecting staff for tasks

1

Skills awareness (attributes of officers) Non-awareness - inappropriate usage 3 Trust you Lack of trust 1 Acknowledge good work Doesn't recognise the importance of

acknowledgement 1

Appear to value the contributions you make Don't appear to value the contributions you make

1

Demonstrate interest in staff No demonstration of interest in staff 1 Do not refer to rank Does refer to rank 1 Gives credit Ignores achievement and recognition 2 Make you feel valued Do not make you feel valued 1 Recognising officers' good work/rewarding staff Good work not recognised/un-rewarded 1 Seeks opportunities to praise Not seen as part of role (opportunities to

praise) 1

Show interest in my job Lack of interest in my job 1 Encouraging personal development Personal development not an issue 1 Objective setting to develop and aid performance

No developmental intent in objective setting 1

Takes active interest in my personal development

Takes active interest in themselves only 1

Using opportunities to develop staff Poor attention to staff development 1 Team builder Detachment 2 Naturally builds relationships Doesn't give a damn 1 Effective skills with colleagues Lack of skills with colleagues 1 Engenders mutual trust Does not engender mutual trust 1 Facilitative Vindictive/bullying attitude towards staff 1 Focused upon producing results Poor motivation of team to produce results 2 Good team players Less effective team players 1 Support common sense approach to policing Unquestioningly rigid 1

Supporting staff in order to allow them to maximise their performance

Not providing support 1

Tries to bring out the best in junior staff De-motivates 1 Obtain organisational support for the team Fail to obtain organisational support for the

team 1

Sensitivity to environment (public relationship) Lack of awareness/inability to recognise the benefits/deliberate stance

1

Confidence in decision making and implementation

Lacking in confidence 2

47

Confident to make decisions Avoids making decisions 1 Decision making/pragmatism - sensible approach

Indecisiveness/unrealistic decisions/deferment 1

Decisive Indecisive, inconsistent 1 Makes effective timely decisions Indecisive 1 Sound decision making Poor decision making 1 Prepared to make and stand by decisions Indecisive 1 Resolves problems and issues in a timely manner

Defers and puts off decision making 1

Strong enough to make a decision when required

Will not make a decision when needed 1

Takes responsibility for making timely decisions

Waffle - avoids taking decisions 1

Committed to helping staff resolve their problems

Shirks responsibilities 1

Confident that they would try and assist me with any enquiry

Would not be interested 1

Acts on people's needs Fails to act 1 Being sensitive to the needs of others and deal with them accordingly

The decision that needs to be taken outweighs the need to be sensitive

1

Concerned about staff welfare Not concerned about staff welfare 1 Concerned for the needs of staff Not interested in the needs of staff 1 Consideration of junior staff Disregard of feelings of junior staff 1 Genuine interest in welfare of staff Lack of interest in welfare of staff 1 Interested in staff welfare Indifferent to staff welfare 1 Positive impact from challenging staff Negative impact from challenging staff 1 Concerned with my welfare Oblivious to my concerns and welfare 1 Show more interest in family/welfare issues Less interest 1 Strong interest in staff welfare Lack of interest in staff welfare 1 Welfare of staff Work orientated 2 Firm lead in operational decisions Hesitant about taking personal lead 1 Is a good operational leader and has personal courage

Not supportive in an appropriate operational environment

1

Challenges lack of action of higher ranks Acquiesces to higher ranks 1 Available for support when needed Unavailable when needed 2 Being available to staff Being remote 2 High visibility and contact with staff Low visibility and contact with staff 1 Appropriately takes appropriate responsibility Failing to take appropriate responsibility 1 Happy to take responsibility for decisions Concerned about covering own back 1 Dealing fairly with the team Scapegoating 1 Honest about mistakes Reluctant to admit mistakes 1 Morally courageous Evades responsibility 1 Takes responsibility for outcome of the decision

Tries to wriggle out of taking responsibility 1

Takes responsibility for problems and decisions

Tend to dump problems and responsibilities

1

Tend to take responsibility for own decisions Washes hands when things go wrong 1 Assesses workload before delegating tasks Dumping work on subordinates without

considering their workload 1

Would not allow unreasonable demands to be made on staff

Would allow unreasonable demands in pursuit of targets

1

Available for advice and guidance Avoid approaching for guidance 1 Clear communications re: objectives Poor briefing - mixed messages 1

48

Clear direction Appeases staff 1 Clear focus on what is to be done and how Vagueness of direction 1 Communications skills - getting a message across

Fails to convey clear message 1

Driving a clear direction Allowing to drift 1 Maintaining a clear and consistent focus to work on and off duty

Limited focus and commitment 2

Is sought out for advice guidance Not sought out for advice guidance 1 Provides direction and support appropriately Staff are in the dark about what is expected of

them 1

Provides sound direction and guidance Does not provide sound guidance 1 Strong direction Weaker direction 1 Consult staff and stakeholders No consultation of staff and stakeholders 2 Consultative Tends to base decisions on own experience 2 More likely listen Don't feel as though they listen and try to

understand 2

Effective listening skills Superficial listening skills 2 Empowering and consultative Autocrat 2 Good listener Selective hearing that fulfils own goals and

perceptions 1

Interested in knowing opinion Didn't value opinion 1 Involves staff in the decision-making process where appropriate

Lack of consultation/participation 1

Listening - paying attention to what is said Seems to ignore the points raised 1 Prepared to listen to concerns Less receptive to staff concerns 2 Prepared to listen to views from people Not willing to listen to views 2 Recognises value of feedback Doesn't recognise importance of feedback 1 Values opinions of others Does not value opinions of others 1 Feel that my contribution is considered Wasting my breath 1 Will accept advice from junior ranks Stubbornly pursues own ideas 2 Willing to listen Less likely to see a need to explain a decision 1 Approachability Discourages approaches by his attitude 1 Approachability Non-approachability 1 Approachability for any problem Less likely to approach with any problems 2 Approachable Difficult to approach 1 Approachable Not approachable 1 Approachable due to good mutual relationships More of a working relationship 1 Approachable to staff Less approachable 1 Confident can approach them on any subject Less interested in resolving some issues 1 Feel comfortable approaching them Inapproachability 2 Feel free to communicate with them Avoid communication with them 1 Has an open-door policy Has a closed-door policy 1 Approachable Less approachable 1 Raise issues/problems with them Not receptive to raising issues/problems 1 Very approachable and receptive to ideas Remote 1 Feel able to contact whenever necessary Would avoid contact if at all possible because

of abrasiveness 1

Keep informed Restricts information 1 Sergeants Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

49

rating Humility Arrogance/public demonstration of arrogance 2 Embraces diversity Fails to embrace diversity 1 Work as a team Loner 2 Allowing scope for creativity and individual decision making in some situations

Rarely allows for individual creativity and decision making - can be overbearing

2

Allows officers to use own initiative Stifles initiative 1 Applies appropriate level of supervision Inappropriate level of supervision 2 Delegate Leads from the front 3 Makes good use of skills Don't consider fully skills and talents of staff in

deployment 2

Considers other wider priorities Respond in person to almost any job 1 Takes into account staff's skills level in allocating work

Lacks knowledge of individual 1

Gives credit where credit is due Fails to give credit to staff 1 Interest in staff Inappropriate interference (personal) 1 Makes junior officers feel valued through sincerity

Does not express the value of junior officers' work

1

Recognises achievement Quick to criticise, slow to praise 1 Recognising good work Lack of interest in good work 1 Share acknowledgement/credit for achievements (team)

Hogs credit for team achievements 2

Show interest in the work I do Disinterested in my individual workload 1 Show respect and courteous to colleagues Does not show respect 1 Actively interested in maximising potential of individuals

Less committed to developing potential of staff 2

Commitment and able to develop staff Unable to identify or not interested in areas for development in staff

1

Concerned about development of staff Does not take an active interest in developing staff

1

Addresses developmental issues as evidenced Fails to address developmental issues 1 Good at developing and motivating individuals Poor regard for personal development 1 Good coaching and mentoring No interest in coaching or mentoring me 2 Keeps PDR up to date Doesn't keep PDR up to date 1 Support for career development No conversation about career development 2 Take an active interest in developing staff Only interested in developing staff 1 Takes time to help with my development Appears indifferent to my development 1 Takes time to improve officer performance Not investing time in officer performance 1 Engenders open, honest and challenging working environment

Over-emphasis on task leaving little time for reflection and learning

1

Caring towards staff Bullying towards staff 1 Creates good team spirit by using appropriate humour

Can't use humour - wishy-washy 2

Good sense of humour whilst maintaining high standards

No sense of humour - dead-pan style 2

Self-aware Unaware of own behaviour and effect on others

1

Supportive and interested in staff Disinterest 1 Ability to digest complex information under pressure

Inability to digest information therefore I or others would take the lead

1

Can make decisions Fails to make decisions 2 Good prompt Ineffective decision-maker 1 Happy to make decisions Indecisive 1 More confident Lacks confidence in decision making 2 Prompt decisions when required Dithers 2

50

Provide practical guidance Will criticise but provide no practical guidance 1 Awareness of people's needs Lack of awareness of needs of individuals 1 Concerned with the welfare of their staff Indifferent to staff welfare 1 Consultative feedback Negative feedback 2 Help you get out of trouble if possible More rigid in their approach 2 Sincere about staff welfare Insincere about staff welfare 1 Genuine concern for welfare of individuals Lacking in genuine concern for welfare of

individuals 1

Leads with caring approach Leads with uncaring approach 1 Sensitive to the needs of others Less sensitive to the needs of others 2 Proactive approach to staff welfare Unapproachable or inactive in staff welfare

issues 1

Sensitive communication style Did not care about me 1 Show interest in me as a person Uncaring 2 Staff are confident that they are being treated as people

Staff sometimes feel that they are being treated as units/mgmt. problems

1

Effective and sensitive deployment of staff Ineffective - non-sensitive deployment of staff 2 Displays bravery in operational situations Does not display bravery 1 Leads from the front Not present when required 2 Readily available as backup/support or supervision at incidents

Reluctant to attend or avoid attending 1

Stands up for you Back-stabbers 1 Standing up to higher ranks for the good of the post

Bow down to pressure from on high 1

Champion staff causes Doesn't fight our corner 1 Made it easy for staff to discuss work issues and/or seek guidance

Stayed remote from staff 1

Accept responsibility for decisions Shifts responsibility for decisions 1 Accepts responsibility for unpopular decisions Won't accept responsibility for personal

unpopular decisions 1

Tries to ensure workload is proportionate Ignores workload pressures until brought to his attention

1

Clear communication style Unclear communication style 2 Always sets targets Sets targets when required by management 1 Directive - explicitly says what is expected/wanted

Ambiguous 2

Approached for advice Do not tend to be approached for advice 2 Focus and direction No direction 1 Good at motivating a team towards specific goals

Unclear longer term goals 2

Provides a clear focus Doesn't provide a clear focus 1 Sets a clear direction Lack of direction 1 Sets clear directions Lack of direction 1 Would seek their advice Would not seek their advice 2 Balanced Single-minded 1 Consulting with team Consult with team but pursue their own ideas 1 Valued views and opinions and involved lower ranks in decisions

Did not seek views and opinions of other staff 1

Effective communicator Doesn't listen 1 Very consultative in decision making Lack of consultation in decision making 2 Makes decision looking at the whole picture Makes decisions in isolation 1 Receptive to ideas Unreceptive 1 Shows willingness to discuss and explain Follows rules without explanation 1 Takes time to consult all parties before reaching decision

Tendency to make decisions without consultation

2

51

Team consultation No consultation 1 Makes decisions taking into account the options presented

Tends not to listen to alternatives but pursues own course of action (autocratic)

1

Willing to consider and accept the views of staff

Unwilling to countenance the views of others 2

Value the experiences of colleagues Unwilling to listen 1 Approachable - can bring concerns to their attention

Unapproachable - insincere to concerns 2

Encourages people to consult with them Doesn't overtly encourage people to consult with them

2

More approachable Less approachable 1 Approachable Not approachable 1 A good negotiator No negotiation 1 Clear and timely oral and written communication

Lack of clarity and untimely communication 1

Constables Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Good team worker Maverick 1 Involve the team in all aspects where possible Tend to do it themselves 2 Team member Loner 1 Deal with others as you would expect to be dealt with

Has no regard or respect for others' feelings 1

Mutual respect Makes rank a barrier 1 Respect for the individual Lack of proficiency 1 Assists willingly in on the job teaching Unwilling to share his knowledge - especially

with younger officers 2

Guiding and coaching Thrown in at deep end - no help 2 Make good mentor Not interested in other peoples' development 3 Willing to share experience and knowledge Not sharing experience and knowledge 1 Support colleagues development Not useful as mentors 3 Supportive of personal development of others Does not actively support others' development 2 Takes an interest in the career development of others

Is neutral to the development needs of others 1

Willing to help develop colleagues Provided limited assistance to make life easier for themselves

2

Creates participative environment Stiff and formal 2 Encourages team spirit Remote and dictatorial 1 Fostering a team spirit to involve people to achieve objectives

Insular 3

Has a positive influence on team performance

Has a negative or no influence on team performance

1

Comfortable to work with Misplaced superiority and arrogance 1 People happy to do things for them as they were helpful and friendly

Others unwilling to assist as any help would not be returned

1

Sense of humour when appropriate Lack sense of humour at work 1 Supportive Reluctantly supportive 1 Confidence to take decisions Indecisive 1 Decisive and willing to accept responsibility for decisions

Indecisive - does not want to take responsibility for decision making

1

Makes conscientious decisions Makes no decisions - has no direction 1

52

Quick decision maker Reluctant decision maker 1 Ability to identify with whole person re: spiritual/physical/function needs

Natural blindness to identifying holistic needs 1

Recognising the need for appropriate compromise for the benefit of the team

Compromise too much/too little 1

Always makes himself available to back-up staff

Less aware of other peoples' needs 1

Have a calming influence in crisis situations Takes a back seat in crisis situations 1 Trustworthy in threatening situation Non-trustworthy 1 Effective spokesman for group toward higher ranks

Less credible as a spokesperson for the group 1

Balances workload against resources Take on too much or too little for the good of the organisation

1

On the level Blows hot and cold 1 Equilibrium on issues Total continued disorientation 2 Keen and confident Inconsistent advice 1 Effective communication skills Ineffective communication skills 1 Effective communications Non-effective communications 1 Good communication skills Unable to relate to people 1 Clear and direct communication with colleagues

Passive re: communication 1

Gain the commitment of colleagues by giving clear explanations

Give briefings without explanation leading to unfocused team

1

Would set objectives to strive for Does not see the need to set objectives 1 Able to deal with confrontation appropriately Inappropriately deals with confrontation 1 Allows others to contribute Does not allow others to contribute 1 Democratic Autocratic 2 Demonstrate an interest in others' views Overtly demonstrates no interest in others'

views 1

Accepts feedback Not perceived as open to challenge 1 Proactively engage people For various reasons do not actively engage 2 Approachable Unapproachable 1 Approachable (personal problems) Not trustworthy with personal issues 1 Approachable (work-wise) Isolation 1 Approachable with regard to staff welfare Less approachable with regard to staff welfare 1 Good information conduit from higher echelons Stilted and uninformative with info from higher

echelons 1

53

Table C4: Constructs relating to having relevant knowledge and skills Chief Officers Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Professional confidence Not confident - is often doubtful 1 Breadth of experience/awareness Limited experience/lack of awareness 2 Confidence built on knowledge, skills and experience

Over-confident without requisite knowledge, skills and experience

2

Generates confidence by credibility and record of delivery

De-motivates and confuses by lack of commitment

1

Inspire by their intellect and competence Lack of inspiration through personal contribution

1

Inspires confidence Undermines confidence/diverts focus 1 Job knowledge - confident Lacking in competence and confidence 1 Knowledge-based competency Lack of breadth of knowledge base 2 Operational credibility Inexperience 1 Projecting and inspiring confidence Provoking doubt over ability and confidence 1 Strong professional competence Broad general management skills 1 Wide experience Apparent lack of experience 2 Capable in command role Dangerous in command role 1 Gives confidence in the area of command and control

Less confident 1

Ability to quickly identify clarity of direction Lack of focus perspective 2 Challenges tradition appropriately Inappropriate challenges to tradition 2 Clarity of judgement and accessing key sources of information

Being unduly influenced and giving confused instructions

1

Effective assessment of problems Avoid the problem 1 Good grasp of the environment in which the public service operates

Not up to speed with community developments and thinking

1

Some confidence in their underlying judgement Less confidence in their underlying judgement (operational and policy)

1

Good judgement based on sound professional knowledge - weighs pros and cons

Not always substance behind the facade of confidence

1

Political nous Narrow perception 2 Ability to move between strategic and tactical issues effectively

Unable to deal equally well with strategic and tactical issues as required

1

Excellent interpersonal skills Poor communication with junior staff 1 'The common touch' in interpersonal skills Remoteness 1 Sustaining a position as the going gets tough Capitulating to pressure from others 1 Courage of convictions Uncertain 2 Willingness to publicly stand up for their beliefs Too concerned with their career ambitions 1 Calmness under pressure More intolerant of failure/problems 2 Dealing with multi-faceted information in effective way

Swamped by information making little sense of use of it

2

Highly competent at dealing with complexity Less able to deal with multiple issues 1 Intellectually intelligent Apparent lack of intelligence 2 Intellectual capacity Intellectually static 2 Pushing boundaries More timid in approaches 2 Challenging tradition Tinker at the edges of traditional ways 2 Charismatic - able to motivate through presence and communication

Bland and less impactive as an individual 2

Charisma Boring 2

Strong people skills re: getting the business done

Weaker people skills which sometimes hinder the business

2

54

Innovators Traditionalist 1 Visionary and innovative and driven Operate as followers and developers of ideas

as opposed to being initiators 2

Superintendents Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Building trust for individuals and teams Inability to build trust for individuals and teams 1 Gives aura of confidence Lack of confidence 1 Having respect due to level of competence Lack of confidence due to an absence of

competency 2

Inspires confidence in subordinates Perceived lack of ability to lead 1 Great experience in previous roles leading to greater dexterity and depth

Limited experience in previous roles resulting in limited dexterity and depth

2

Operational competence Operational incompetence 1 Reputation and track record Lack of credibility or experience 2 Sound working knowledge of role and task Minimum level of knowledge or awareness 1 Perceived as effective in command situations Do not inspire confidence in command

situations 1

Ability to assess and review given info and make decisions

Not being able to think broadly enough and avoids making the decision

1

Accurate assessment of the demands of the task

Makes a limited assessment of the demands of the task

1

Careful search for info and analysis of problems to produce reasoned solutions

More focused on speedy resolution of problems

1

Considered decision making Hasty and impulsive decision making 1 Evidence-based decision makers Authority based on operational credibility 2 Followers are confident in their plans and decisions

Followers would have doubts about the decisions and plans

1

Perceived to be aware of policing issues Lacks insight in policing issues 1 Pursues the appropriate direction and importance

Doesn't pursue the appropriate direction and importance

2

Sees 'policing' as a wider issue than just the police service

Police do all the policing 1

Shows good professional judgement when resolving disputes

Sometimes shows lack of professional judgement when resolving disputes

1

Flexible, greater dexterity in thinking in problem identification and solution

Single-track approach to problem identification and solution

1

Sound judgements Inspired less confidence in judgement 1 Effective communicator at all levels Communicates less well at some levels 1 Good people person Lack of interpersonal skills 1 Comfortable with unpopular decisions Uncomfortable with unpopular decisions 3 Has courage to stand up to circumstances which adversely affect his/her purpose

Does not have the courage to stand up to circumstances which adversely affect purpose

1

Independent thinker Organisation 'clone' 2 Coping with pressure Reacts inappropriately to pressure 1 Doesn't panic, works well under pressure Panics - unable to cope under pressure 2 Embraces high profile responsibility Shies away from high profile 1 Confident to handle bullies Reluctance to challenge bullies 1 Strong crisis management Weak crisis management 1 Willingness to confront difficult issues fairly Reluctance to confront a difficult issue 1 Ability to assess connection between complex relationships - in social/org or police service

Not so 1

Ability to conceptualise - good chairman Unable to grasp ideas - poor chairman 1 Confident to challenge Less confidence to challenge 1

55

Dynamic and open to change Comfortable with the past - fear of risks associated with change

1

Flexible in approach and willing to consider change

Less so 1

Recognise need to be flexible Need to be persuaded to be flexible 2 Ability to sustain motivation Failed to sustain motivation 1 Inspirational and charismatic Lack of confidence 2 Instills confidence through presence Reduction in confidence through lack of

presence 1

Leadership - charisma Remote - not impactive 1 Motivate and initialise Failed to motivate 1 Personable - one-to-one effectiveness Remote, emotionally constrained, less

engaged in one-to-one 2

Presence and confidence Lack of presence and confidence 1 Strong presence Lack of positive impact due to personal style 1 Demonstrates personal organisation Unorganised 1 Well organised and prepared Disorganised and ill-prepared 1 Creativity Need to prompt for ideas 2 Have strategy and vision and take long-term view

Focuses on here and now 2

Inspectors Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Professional competence Lack of professional competence 2 Appropriate knowledge and skills fit for the job of inspector

Lack of appropriate knowledge and skills for the job of inspector

2

Appropriate knowledge and skills fit for the specific role

Lack of appropriate knowledge and skills fit for the specific role

2

Competence in the role Lacking competence 2 Credibility Object of ridicule 1 Good broad experience of policing in general Misplaced belief of policing experience 1 Good knowledge of procedures Poor knowledge of procedures 1 Has experience and knows how to use it Has experience but does not know how to use it 2 Have practical uniform experience Very little practical uniform experience 1 Inspires confidence in others Does not inspire confidence in others 1 Instills confidence Fails to instill confidence 1 Experience in current roles Lack of experience in current roles 1 Operational competence Perceived operational incompetence 1 Real life experience and has good relationships with the public

Lacks both life experience and relationship with the public

1

Reliable due to their level of knowledge Lack of experience 1 Self-confident Lacks self-confidence 1 Seems to be in control of major situations Lacks control of major situations 1 Viewed as very capable in all operational situations

Colleagues have less confidence in their operational ability

1

Ability to see a solution to a problem Inability to see solutions to problems 1 Able to apply the law practically Can't apply theory into practice 3 Broad view to issues Narrow view to issues 2 Can be relied upon to make the correct decision

Indecisive 1

Confident and safe that they would make right decisions

Less confident 1

Credible due to effective decision making Decision made in haste (lack of experience) 1

56

Decisions based on available information and views

Hasty - fails to take full account of available information and views

1

Effective use of non-people resources Ineffective use of resources 1 Good professional judgement Poor professional judgement 1 Have confidence in their decisions in any area

Little faith in what they had to say 1

Identifies the importance of organisational needs

Lack of appreciation of the importance of organisational needs

1

Makes the right decisions - operationally Makes operational mistakes 1 More confident in their decisions Less confident in their decisions 1 More considered decision making Not frightened to make firm decisions (frantic) 2 Equal reliance on experience and theory Over-reliance on academic as a substitute for

experience 2

Balanced view of decision making Quick response to decision making 1 Sees the bigger picture Narrow focus 3 Tactically aware Lost in strategy 2 Ability to communicate at all levels effectively An inability to communicate at one or more

levels in the organisation 1

Can adapt to any level Unable to express himself to lower ranks 1 Relates effectively to people of all levels Not as effective relating to all ranks 2 Follow own beliefs Allow own beliefs to be overridden (political

correctness) 2

Willing to put themselves at personal and professional risk for their principles

Reluctant to put themselves at any risk 1

Calm under pressure Volatile 1 Can make sound operational decisions under pressure

Ineffective decision maker when under pressure 1

Resilience/calmness/steadfastness Crumbling uncertainty 1 Ability to grasp complex issues and take appropriate action

Deals with problems in a short-term simplistic way

2

More interested in looking for new solutions Set in their ways 1 Will introduce innovation Reluctance to change 3 Able to motivate a wide range of staff Limited ability to motivate staff 1 Good motivators Motivating by force 1 Having a presence Lacking presence 1 Knows how to rally the troops Puts a downer on morale 1 Motivator De-motivates 1 Natural ability to motivate and drive staff Do not relate to staff 1 Imaginative Bound by procedures 2 Creative approach to problem solving No creativity 2 More forward thinking Traditional thinker 2 Sergeant Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Aura of confidence Engender less confidence 1 Comfortable in current role Less comfortable the higher he is promoted 1 Command/inspire respect Do not command respect 1 Competent at dealing with all different aspects of police work

Limited range of knowledge - strong in some areas and weak in others

3

Competent police officer Incompetent police officer 2 Confident in the role they carry out Less confident due to lack of experience 1 Credibility in role Lacking credibility 1 Credible leader Lack of credibility 1

57

Display operational knowledge Did not have necessary level of operational knowledge

1

Good knowledge of legislation, policy and procedures

Lacked knowledge of policy legislation and procedure

2

Good knowledge of policing policies and procedures

Poor knowledge of policing policies and procedures

1

High standards of policing skills Lower standards of policing skills 1 Competent Incompetent 2 Inspires confidence in their subordinates & supervisors - safe pair of hands

Less inspiring in confidence to their subs/sups when steering the ship

2

Instills confidence Lack of confidence 1 Instills confidence in staff Doesn't instill confidence in staff 1 Gaining respect No respect 1 Perceived as professionally competent Incompetent 1 Presence - inspires confidence in others Self-confident but uninspiring 2 Professional competence Lack of professional competence 1 Does not need to demonstrate authority Relies on status for authority 2 Sets high standards for paperwork especially prosecution files

Lack of knowledge in file preparation and paperwork

2

Tactical thinker No tactical appreciation 1 Up to date knowledge of policy and procedure Lack of current knowledge of policy and

procedure 1

Wide experience of everyday policing Limited experience - less respect and confidence in leadership

1

Good/effective in operational situations Ineffective at directing/leading in operation incidents

2

Appropriate use of knowledge Lack of application 1 Can be relied upon to provide sound guidance in complex situations

Doesn't provide an efficient solution to complex situations

1

Confidence in their knowledge to give good advice

Less confident in their knowledge and ability to make good judgements

1

Confident in their leadership Question their judgement 1 Decisions based on sound knowledge Decisions made without due consideration 1 Makes decision based on educated information Don't trust their decisions because use rank to

justify 1

More considered/slower decision making Fast/less considered decision making 3 Good judgement based on wide experience Lacking necessary breadth of experience to

give clear direction in all situations 1

Has objective viewpoint Does not display objectivity 1 Over confident - fails to appreciate need to consider policy & procedure before acting

Lacks confidence - over-emphasis on policy and procedure with little regard to environment

3

Plans ahead and foresees consequences Fails to foresee consequences 1 Sincere commitment Superficial problem-solving 2 Takes a broad view regarding aspects of police work

Very narrow view of day to day approach 2

Would trust their judgement Less confident in their judgement 1 Ability to communicate with colleagues Lack of communication 1 Ability to impact positively on junior ranks Inability to positively impact 1 Communicate at every level Unable to communicate at all levels 2 Communicates to subordinates on a level and in language they understand

Tends to think not in the real world 1

Assertive Acquiesce 2 Morally courageous Lacks moral courage 1 Moral courage Moves with prevailing opinion (lack moral

courage) 1

Ability to cope with pressure Can't cope with pressure 2

58

Effective decision making under pressure Poor decision making under pressure 1 Have a calm and confident approach Frantic in the face of adversity 2 Willingness to tackle difficult issues Ignore/neglect difficult issues 2 Can deal with multiple tasks at a time Can only deal with one job at a time 1 Regularly demonstrates that they can manage and control multiple tasks

Tend to be able to manage and control only a very few tasks at one time

2

Flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances

Inflexible and less co-operative 2

Flexible approach to problem solving Inflexible approach to problem solving 2 Teams motivated by leader Teams motivated in spite of leader 1 The ability to motivate team No ability to motivate team 1 Uses charisma to get things done Not dynamic 3 Good planning and organisation of tasks and administrative work

Poor planning - disorganised 2

Creative and innovative Needs direction 2 Creative problem solving Inflexible problem solver 1 Good initiative and proactive regarding crime and disorder issues

Lacks ideas in dealing with wider issues of crime and disorder

2

Innovative Waits to be led 1 Constables Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

rating Generates confidence in his decisions No faith/confidence in decisions 1 Ability to take charge Unable to take control 1 Confident in their ability to complete tasks satisfactorily

Tends to lack self-confidence - needs additional guidance

1

Demonstrates confidence Displays a lack of confidence in themselves 2 Engenders trust in other people Lack of trust and confidence 1 Font of knowledge Lack of knowledge 2 Good knowledge of law Lack of knowledge of law 1 Good operational leader More comfortable as a manager 1 Good point of contact re: their specialist skills Doesn't stand out as a leader/point of contact 1 Having presence and capable Talks a good job but does not perform it 1 Insight from experience Lack of insight from experience 1 Instill trust in others Don't engage respect of people who work with 2 Knowledge of general procedures Specialist area of knowledge 3 Knowledge of policy and law Lack of knowledge - always will refer to seek

confidence 2

Knowledgeable in their fields and give sound advice

Has knowledge but lacks experience 2

Confident in their own ability Lack of experience - overcompensation 1 High level of past experience before police service

Lacks life experience before police service 2

Open door People less likely to approach due to lack of experience

1

Respect by colleagues Lack of respect by colleagues 1 Trust in competence with regard to law issues Lack of trust in competence with regard to law 1 Ability to gauge a situation before acting Adopts wrong demeanor in a given situation

(autocratic) 1

Confident in their personal competence Cannot trust judgement 1 Focused, analytical, knowledgeable decision making

Unsystematic decision making 1

59

Good judgement of character and circumstances/situations

Does not comprehend circumstances/situations

2

Sees wider picture operationally Lacks peripheral vision 1 Makes sound knowledge-based decisions Too dependent on advice of others 1 Safe pair of hands - trusted Not trusted to make sound decisions 1 Sensitive to wider issue Blinkered 2 Good all-round people skills Lacking in people skills 1 Assertive Non-assertive 2 Strong in character Weak in character 2 Calmness under pressure Less calm under pressure 1 Ready to deal with anything Need protecting 2 Think laterally in trying to solve problems Use limited options to solve problems 2 Have a presence and persona Exploits the shock value 2 Having presence and capable Lacks presence but is capable 1 Inspiration Lack of drive and focus 1 Effective time management Lack of urgency 2 Manage workload effectively to achieve timely delivery

Fail to prioritise workload and deliver on time 1

Innovative and will look for new ways to take things forward

Content with status quo 2

Visionary and inspiring Plodder - fails to inspire 1

60

Appendix D: Effective leadership constructs elicited from gay and lesbian police officers Constable target rank Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

Rating Motivated and committed to the work they are doing

Lacks commitment to public service 1

Imaginative Less likely to look for new solutions 1 Willing to question and challenge Keep their heads down 2 Seeks personal development to widen contribution through supervisory role

Seeks routes other than promotion for personal development

3

Willing to share their experience with colleagues

Never approached for advice 1

Sergeant target rank Positive Pole Negative Pole Ideal

Rating More consistent in standard setting Inconsistent in standard setting; prone to

favouritism 1

Provide good support when requested Lack of support; left to self 1 Encouraged communication Discouraged communication 1 Keen to offer support Avoid providing needed support 2 Take up concerns on my behalf More of a struggle to engage on my behalf 2 Foster team spirit Neglected team spirit 1 Confident in decision making Seemed less confident about own decisions 1 Always reasonable and fair Not always aware of the effects of what he

said on others 1

Trust their advice Won't always explain 2 Polite and courteous Made to feel daft for asking 1 Challenges unfairness Keeps in with management 1 Take effective control when necessary Lead from the rear 1 Does not add to stress at work Creates stressful working environment 1 High professional standards Avoids work 1 Challenges poor performance Ignores problem staff 1 High knowledge of law and policing practices and willing to share

Lack of knowledge and approachability 1

Setting high standards for themselves and others

Behaves inappropriately at times 1

Make fair and appropriate demands Makes unfair demands on individuals 1 Provides support in all areas Prepared to give help only where they feel

comfortable 1

Calming influence; gives officers confidence Damages peoples' confidence 2 Actively develops officers' potential Narrow development not tailored to your

needs 1

Always praises good work appropriately Gives inappropriate praise 1 Takes appropriate interest in the work of officers

Takes too much or too little interest in the work of officers

1

Provides demonstration or guidance to ensure performance

Uses rank to achieve performance (doesn't always work)

1

61

Clearly communicates what is required and why

No reasons given 1

Cares about the performance of the service Task focused 1 Team player Isolated from team; affects confidence 1 Inspector target rank Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

Rating Genuine listening False; discouraged subsequent approach 1 Always available Makes it difficult for staff to contact them 1 Identifies with responsibilities Indiscriminate delegation 1 Effective in role Square peg in round hole 1 Champions concerns of staff Not interested 2 Brings energy to role Disinterested 1 Trusted to deal with confidences appropriately

Cannot be trusted 1

Takes control of situations in a timely way Allows to fester 1 Committed to learning their role Feel rank is enough 1 Identifies staff's skills and makes use of these

Does not recognise individual skills 1

Actively encourages staff to take up development opportunities

Leaves staff to their own devices 1

Tough decisions when required Made followers feel they were taking the decisions

2

Took on board or listened to criticisms Reacted to criticism with bullying 3 Available for guidance Not interested in staff 1 Encourages staff development Hinders staff development 1 Clear communication Unclear communication 1 Recognises need for change and implements it effectively

Saw no need for change 1

Very motivated Avoided work at all costs 1 Listens and takes on others' views Autocratic bully 1 Extremely professional Very unprofessional 1 Makes decisions and is prepared to acknowledge mistakes

Frightened to make decisions 1

Up-front and honest Two-faced 1 Challenges when required regardless of fallout

Doesn't challenge (for fear of rejection) 1

Recognises contributions of colleagues Clouded view of contributions of staff 1

Superintendent target rank Positive pole Negative pole Ideal

Rating Leading by example Expecting the team to do the work without

any leadership 1

Contributes to the team effort and is aware of being a team member

Not part of the team because not contributing 1

Is aware of tasks and achieves them Do not keep track of tasks and do not achieve them

1

Provides leadership and guidance and modifies decisions based on feedback

Gives orders rather than provides leadership and doesn't accept feedback

1

Supports the need for development for long-term gain

Sacrifices staff development for short-term gain

1

Take responsibility Dump and blame 2

62

Problem-solve with the team Take no interest once delegated 2 Credit where credit is due Take credit even where work was delegated 1 Service delivery the main focus Own career their main focus 1 Accept responsibility for difficult decisions Try to avoid taking difficult decisions 2 Inspire confidence Does not inspire confidence 1 Use skills and abilities Use rank 2 Encourage critical thinking Happy for you to use instinct 2 Actively develops/mentors staff Does not see developing/mentoring others as

relevant 1

Relates to person as a person Relates to people as a rank 2 Checks progress Occasionally check on progress (usually just

in response to pressure ) 2

Breadth of experience Narrowly focused policing experience 1 Value and defend diversity Negative view of diversity 1 See diversity in proper perspective (enabling) See diversity as a personal or political

problem 1

Inspire confidence in operational context Perceived as being out of touch 1 Pragmatic Not pragmatic 1 Inspires and motivates others Poor interpersonal skills 1 Demonstrates respect for others at all levels Disregard of impact on others 1 Dynamic, interactive and social Wooden/cold 1 Comparison of the groupings of constructs obtained in the original and supplementary samples respectively Constructs

in original sample

Constructs in supplementary sample

Committed to achieving a high quality service and supporting staff to achieve this

11.0 % 7.5 %

Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour

19.2 % 16.3 %

Enabling, valuing and developing staff

44.2 % 63.7 % *

Having relevant knowledge and skills

25.6 % 12.5 % *

Comparison of the groupings of constructs obtained in supplementary sample by rank PC Sgt Insp Sup Committed to achieving a high quality service and supporting staff to achieve this

40 % 4 % 8 % 4 %

Displaying high personal and professional standards and challenging poor behaviour

20 % 22 % 17 % 8 %

Enabling, valuing and developing staff

20 % 70 % 71 % 59 %

Having relevant knowledge and skills

20 % 4 % 4 % 29 %

63

Appendix E: Answers to psychological outcome questions by rank/role of line manager

Behaves in a way that raises my motivation to achieve

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 0 0% 1 2% 2 4% 5 10% 19 39% 22 45% 49 100%Sergeant 10 7% 10 7% 12 8% 25 16% 56 37% 40 26% 153 100%Inspector 18 12% 21 14% 17 11% 30 19% 51 33% 19 12% 156 100%Chief Inspector 2 3% 4 6% 6 9% 18 28% 25 39% 9 14% 64 100%Superintendent 4 3% 8 6% 16 12% 31 24% 46 35% 27 21% 132 100%Chief Superintendent 2 2% 8 10% 8 10% 14 17% 33 39% 19 23% 84 100%Chief Officer 9 7% 15 12% 15 12% 33 26% 40 31% 17 13% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 5 25% 1 5% 2 10% 6 30% 3 15% 3 15% 20 100%Civilian Middle Manager 11 14% 12 15% 14 17% 12 15% 23 28% 9 11% 81 100%Civilian Senior Manager 10 6% 18 11% 14 8% 39 23% 58 34% 30 18% 169 100%

Total 71 7% 98 10% 106 10% 213 21% 354 34% 195 19% 1037 100%

Manages and leads in a way which I find very satisfying

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 3 6% 7 14% 23 47% 16 33% 49 100%Sergeant 10 7% 10 7% 15 10% 25 16% 55 36% 39 25% 154 100%Inspector 23 15% 19 12% 14 9% 24 15% 49 31% 29 18% 158 100%Chief Inspector 4 6% 4 6% 15 23% 14 22% 18 28% 9 14% 64 100%Superintendent 5 4% 10 8% 19 14% 24 18% 48 36% 26 20% 132 100%Chief Superintendent 2 2% 11 13% 9 11% 14 17% 28 33% 21 25% 85 100%Chief Officer 8 6% 12 9% 15 12% 37 29% 37 29% 20 16% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 6 29% 1 5% 1 5% 4 19% 5 24% 4 19% 21 100%Civilian Middle Manager 12 15% 17 21% 12 15% 12 15% 19 24% 9 11% 81 100%Civilian Senior Manager 14 8% 19 11% 22 13% 35 21% 49 29% 28 17% 167 100%

Total 84 8% 103 10% 125 12% 196 19% 331 32% 201 19% 1040 100%

Behaves in a manner which has a positive effect on my commitment to do the job

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 4 8% 5 10% 20 41% 20 41% 49 100%Sergeant 11 7% 9 6% 10 7% 23 15% 56 37% 43 28% 152 100%Inspector 16 10% 12 8% 17 11% 27 17% 60 39% 24 15% 156 100%Chief Inspector 4 6% 5 8% 8 13% 16 25% 21 33% 9 14% 63 100%Superintendent 4 3% 7 5% 12 9% 33 25% 48 37% 27 21% 131 100%Chief Superintendent 3 4% 5 6% 12 14% 11 13% 36 43% 17 20% 84 100%Chief Officer 9 7% 2 2% 24 19% 32 25% 45 35% 17 13% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 4 21% 2 11% 3 16% 3 16% 2 11% 5 26% 19 100%Civilian Middle Manager 8 10% 7 9% 15 19% 15 19% 23 29% 11 14% 79 100%Civilian Senior Manager 15 9% 10 6% 22 13% 28 17% 57 34% 34 21% 166 100%

Total 74 7% 59 6% 127 12% 193 19% 368 36% 207 20% 1028 100%

Behaves in a manner which has a positive effect on my self-confidence

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 1 2% 4 8% 7 14% 19 39% 18 37% 49 100%Sergeant 8 5% 6 4% 13 9% 28 18% 51 33% 47 31% 153 100%Inspector 12 8% 16 10% 13 8% 36 23% 57 37% 22 14% 156 100%Chief Inspector 2 3% 4 6% 7 11% 18 28% 23 36% 10 16% 64 100%Superintendent 5 4% 4 3% 13 10% 35 27% 57 44% 17 13% 131 100%Chief Superintendent 2 2% 7 8% 9 11% 17 20% 36 42% 14 17% 85 100%Chief Officer 8 6% 6 5% 17 13% 39 30% 46 36% 13 10% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 5 24% 1 5% 4 19% 2 10% 4 19% 5 24% 21 100%Civilian Middle Manager 6 8% 11 14% 13 17% 18 23% 21 27% 9 12% 78 100%Civilian Senior Manager 16 10% 7 4% 16 10% 40 24% 53 32% 35 21% 167 100%

Total 65 6% 62 6% 109 11% 240 23% 367 36% 190 18% 1033 100%

Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total

Slightly agree Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree

Linemanager'srank/role

64

Behaves in a manner which raises my sense of fulfilment for my job

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 3 6% 8 16% 22 45% 16 33% 49 100%Sergeant 10 7% 6 4% 19 13% 28 19% 52 35% 35 23% 150 100%Inspector 15 10% 17 11% 19 12% 42 27% 42 27% 20 13% 155 100%Chief Inspector 2 3% 3 5% 12 19% 20 31% 19 30% 8 13% 64 100%Superintendent 4 3% 12 9% 13 10% 38 30% 42 33% 19 15% 128 100%Chief Superintendent 1 1% 10 12% 10 12% 21 25% 32 38% 11 13% 85 100%Chief Officer 9 7% 6 5% 28 22% 31 24% 42 33% 13 10% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 5 24% 6 29% 3 14% 2 10% 5 24% 21 100%Civilian Middle Manager 10 13% 9 12% 13 17% 19 25% 19 25% 7 9% 77 100%Civilian Senior Manager 17 10% 9 6% 24 15% 32 19% 59 36% 24 15% 165 100%

Total 73 7% 72 7% 147 14% 242 24% 331 32% 158 15% 1023 100%

Reduces my job-related stress by his/her approach to leadership

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 2 4% 2 4% 9 19% 22 47% 12 26% 47 100%Sergeant 11 7% 9 6% 17 11% 28 19% 52 35% 32 22% 149 100%Inspector 21 14% 20 13% 22 14% 35 23% 41 27% 15 10% 154 100%Chief Inspector 5 8% 7 12% 11 18% 22 37% 12 20% 3 5% 60 100%Superintendent 9 7% 11 9% 19 15% 40 31% 37 29% 14 11% 130 100%Chief Superintendent 5 6% 10 12% 16 20% 19 24% 23 28% 8 10% 81 100%Chief Officer 14 11% 16 12% 31 24% 35 27% 27 21% 6 5% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 5 25% 2 10% 5 25% 5 25% 1 5% 2 10% 20 100%Civilian Middle Manager 12 15% 12 15% 14 18% 14 18% 21 27% 5 6% 78 100%Civilian Senior Manager 18 11% 17 10% 33 20% 45 27% 36 22% 18 11% 167 100%

Total 100 10% 106 10% 170 17% 252 25% 272 27% 115 11% 1015 100%

Leads and behaves in such a way that increases my job satisfaction

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 1 2% 3 6% 9 18% 18 37% 18 37% 49 100%Sergeant 11 8% 7 5% 14 10% 32 22% 56 38% 27 18% 147 100%Inspector 19 12% 22 14% 16 10% 38 25% 43 28% 16 10% 154 100%Chief Inspector 3 5% 5 8% 12 19% 14 23% 21 34% 7 11% 62 100%Superintendent 7 6% 10 8% 13 10% 35 27% 46 36% 17 13% 128 100%Chief Superintendent 2 2% 12 14% 10 12% 11 13% 38 45% 11 13% 84 100%Chief Officer 7 5% 16 12% 27 21% 31 24% 38 30% 10 8% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 4 19% 3 14% 3 14% 5 24% 4 19% 2 10% 21 100%Civilian Middle Manager 11 14% 12 16% 14 18% 13 17% 20 26% 7 9% 77 100%Civilian Senior Manager 16 10% 14 8% 33 20% 29 17% 48 29% 28 17% 168 100%

Total 80 8% 102 10% 145 14% 217 21% 332 33% 143 14% 1019 100%

Manages and behaves in a manner that increases my self-esteem

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 1 2% 4 9% 9 19% 18 38% 15 32% 47 100%Sergeant 9 6% 7 5% 15 10% 35 24% 49 33% 34 23% 149 100%Inspector 15 10% 21 14% 14 9% 41 27% 46 30% 16 11% 153 100%Chief Inspector 2 3% 7 11% 9 15% 18 29% 19 31% 7 11% 62 100%Superintendent 5 4% 11 9% 17 13% 31 24% 49 38% 15 12% 128 100%Chief Superintendent 1 1% 12 14% 8 10% 16 19% 32 38% 15 18% 84 100%Chief Officer 7 5% 9 7% 23 18% 43 33% 34 26% 13 10% 129 100%Civilian Junior Manager 4 19% 3 14% 2 10% 5 24% 4 19% 3 14% 21 100%Civilian Middle Manager 10 13% 11 15% 9 12% 14 19% 25 33% 6 8% 75 100%Civilian Senior Manager 13 8% 12 7% 26 16% 33 20% 60 36% 23 14% 167 100%

Total 66 7% 94 9% 127 13% 245 24% 336 33% 147 15% 1015 100%

Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Agree Strongly agree Total

Linemanager'srank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

65

Has a leadership style that increases my commitment to the organisation

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 1 2% 4 8% 8 17% 18 38% 17 35% 48 100%Sergeant 12 8% 14 9% 13 9% 29 20% 58 39% 23 15% 149 100%Inspector 17 11% 21 14% 23 15% 35 23% 47 30% 12 8% 155 100%Chief Inspector 2 3% 7 11% 12 19% 17 27% 17 27% 7 11% 62 100%Superintendent 11 9% 7 6% 15 12% 33 27% 40 32% 18 15% 124 100%Chief Superintendent 3 4% 10 12% 10 12% 17 20% 31 37% 14 17% 85 100%Chief Officer 10 8% 11 9% 19 15% 33 26% 43 34% 12 9% 128 100%Civilian Junior Manager 5 24% 2 10% 3 14% 6 29% 2 10% 3 14% 21 100%Civilian Middle Manager 10 13% 14 18% 12 15% 18 23% 19 24% 5 6% 78 100%Civilian Senior Manager 14 9% 17 11% 26 16% 24 15% 49 30% 31 19% 161 100%

Total 84 8% 104 10% 137 14% 220 22% 324 32% 142 14% 1011 100%

Acts in a manner that enables me to achieve beyond my expectations

N N N N N N NTutor Constable 2 4% 9 19% 21 45% 15 32% 47 100%Sergeant 8 6% 10 7% 20 14% 38 26% 49 34% 20 14% 145 100%Inspector 12 8% 22 15% 32 22% 32 22% 40 27% 11 7% 149 100%Chief Inspector 3 5% 4 7% 18 30% 19 31% 16 26% 1 2% 61 100%Superintendent 7 6% 12 10% 22 18% 43 36% 30 25% 7 6% 121 100%Chief Superintendent 2 2% 11 13% 15 18% 23 28% 29 35% 2 2% 82 100%Chief Officer 8 7% 11 9% 31 25% 38 31% 28 23% 8 7% 124 100%Civilian Junior Manager 3 15% 4 20% 2 10% 5 25% 2 10% 4 20% 20 100%Civilian Middle Manager 8 11% 12 17% 11 15% 18 25% 17 24% 6 8% 72 100%Civilian Senior Manager 12 7% 11 7% 32 20% 40 25% 45 28% 22 14% 162 100%

Total 63 6% 97 10% 185 19% 265 27% 277 28% 96 10% 983 100%

Agree Strongly agree Total

Line manager's rank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Agree Strongly agree Total

Line manager's rank/role

Strongly disagree Disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree

Produced by the Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office

This document is available only in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF)through the RDS website

Home OfficeResearch, Development and Statistics DirectorateCommunication Development UnitRoom 26450 Queen Anne’s GateLondon SW1H 9AT

Tel: 020 7273 2084 (answerphone outside of office hours)Fax: 020 7222 0211Email: publications.rds@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

ISBN 1 84473 263 0 Crown copyright 2004