Leadership Styles

Running Head: Impact of Leadership Styles

The Impact of Leadership Styles on Employee Performance

P. Parks Duncan
University of Central Florida

Leadership Styles

Abstract
The need to develop better leadership styles is becoming increasingly
important in all organizations. The purpose of this paper is to ascertain if
there is a correlation between the supervisors leadership style and the
employees performance, particularly in the law enforcement field.
paper

reviews

three

recent

and

widely

utilized

leadership

This
styles:

contingency theory, transactional theory, and transformational theory.

There is a lack of total agreement in the reviewed literature as to the best
leadership style to be used in law enforcement, but transactional theory
appears to be more effective than contingency theory.

Transformational

theory is considered by many to be an improvement to the transactional

theory of leadership.

There appears to be an ever increasing number of

studies supporting the benefits of the transformational theory. In todays

ever changing climate, there are some researchers whose findings suggest
the optimal leadership style may be a blend of transactional and
transformational theories.

Leadership Styles

1. Introduction
This paper attempts to find a correlation between the supervisors
leadership style and the employees performance, particularly in the law
enforcement field. The use of the correct and appropriate leadership style
in all fields has long been a topic of discussion and debate by both scholars
as well as practitioners. The desire to develop better leadership styles is
becoming a matter of increasing importance in the public sector and
especially in law enforcement agencies. (Bruns & Shuman, 1988, p 145).
Police leadership is often not well developed because of the police culture,
the law enforcements bureaucratic rank and file structure and the civil
nature of the job (Densten, 1999).

As a result, a variety of theories on

different leaderships styles have evolved but many have multiple similarities
(Engel, 2001). Engel (2000) initially reported that many earlier works have
suggested that supervisory styles have a significant impact on patrol officer
behavior although the author noted no research has been attempted to
evaluate the varying influence that different supervisory styles have over
police officer behavior.

Engel (2003) later reported a more recent and

important finding that the style or quality of supervision can significantly

influence patrol officers behavior.

Supervision by the sergeant can

influence some patrol officer behaviors, but this influence varies according
to the style of supervision.

As Engel (2001 & 2003) notes, first-line

supervision is extremely important to police organizations success and the

implementation of organizational goals.

But the author also reports that

Leadership Styles

studies on police supervision are limited in scope and fail to answer many
questions on differences in leadership styles.
For the purposes of this work, performance is defined as the execution
or accomplishment of work, acts, feats, etc.

Satisfaction is defined as the

fulfillment or gratification of a desire, need, or appetite (dictionary.com).

Job satisfaction is defined as the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or
dislike (dissatisfaction) their jobs.

Traditional job satisfaction facets

include: co-workers, pay, job conditions, supervision, nature of the work and
benefits. (Williams, 2004). For the purposes of this paper, it is assumed
that

leaders

performance.

aspire

to

increase

subordinates

job

satisfaction

and

In addition, it is further assumed job satisfaction and

performance have some degree of positive correlation and they are linked in
some fashion.

For example, if employee job satisfaction increases, then

employee job performance improves. It should be noted this relationship

between job performance and job satisfaction has been the topic of
numerous studies whose results have been mixed.

Arguments such as

does satisfaction lead to performance? or does performance lead to

satisfaction? or if there any correlation whatsoever between performance
and satisfaction still exist.

It is still an issue of continuing debate

(Buchanan, 2006).
Three recent theories to be discussed in this paper are the contingency
theory, the transactional theory, and the transformational theory.

The

contingency theory speculates that leadership styles are task or relationship

Leadership Styles
oriented.

This theory suggests effective leadership is determined by the

situation and an effective leader is able to adapt to a variety of situations.

Several models have prevailed under the contingency theory of leadership.
The Situational Leadership Model (Hersey and Blanchard, 1977) seems to
have been the most accepted and most prevalent model under the
contingency theory (Graeff, 1983).

This was deemed the most effective

leadership model from the late 1960s to the early 1980s and as such, was
the most prevalent (Bryan, 2002).
The second and third leadership theories to be discussed in this paper
were introduced by Burns (1978) who identified two types of leaders
transactional leaders and transformational leaders.

He made a sharp

distinction between transactional and transformational leadership and

considered them as opposite ends of the spectrum. While they were
somewhat

similar,

transformational

the

transactional

leadership

theory

leadership

were

distinct

theory
and

had

and

the

different

applications. Bass (1985) theorized that transformational leadership can be

considered an extension of transactional leadership. He hypothesized that
transformational leadership complemented transactional leadership and
they were not mutually exclusive (as cited by Johnson, 2006; Chan 2005;
Ozmen, 2009).

Both transactional and transformational leadership styles

are expected to influence their subordinates behavior. But they may not be
equally as effective in developing all types of subordinates performance
(Johnson, 2006).

Leadership Styles

II. Contingency Theory of Leadership

The contingency theory of leadership suggests the leader's ability to
lead is dependent upon various situational factors, including the leader's
preferred style, the capabilities and behaviors of followers and various other
situational factors. There is no one best way of leading and effective
leadership styles vary from situation to situation.

The theory assumes

leadership behaviors affect outcomes, such as group performance and

achieving goals, by the influencing the subordinates behavior (Butler &
Reese, 1991).
There have been several models utilizing the contingency theory
concepts the Contingency Leadership Theory (Fiedler, 1967), Normative
Decision Theory (Vroom & Yetton, 1988), and Path-Goal Theory (House,
1971) (as cited by Butler and Reese, 1991).

The Situational Leadership

Model (SLM) by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) stands out in terms of its
popularity with practitioners (Blank, Weitzel & Green, 1990).

The SLM

depicts four leadership styles grouped by task behavior and relationship

behavior.

The four styles are labeled (1) telling a high risk/low

relationship, (2) selling a high risk/high relationship, (3) delegating a low

task/low relationship, and (4) participating a low task/high relationship.
The SLM recommends the appropriate leadership style based on the
maturity of the subordinates.

Maturity is the subordinates willingness

Leadership Styles

and ability based on education and/or experience to focus their behavior on

a task or objective. A managers adaptability is measured by a tool called
the Leader Effectiveness and Adaptability Description (LEAD) (Butler &
Reese, 1991).
SLM was used extensively in the training of police managers in the
United States although it was widely acknowledged that most of the police
supervisors did not receive any formal management training. In a study of
211 police supervisors, the supervisors who were rated the most effective
utilized the SLM. (Standing Bear, 1986).
It should be noted most of these contingency theory models and
associated papers were written over 20 years, well before the development
of the transactional and transformations theories.

Does the Contingency Theory Lend Itself to Increased Employee

Performance?
Despite some studies offering limited and provisional support of the
SLM, most studies have been critical for various reasons. The researchers
indicated this is particularly surprising due to the extensive use of the SLM
and its widely accepted managerial philosophy throughout the world. The
researchers note the SLM has little verifiable support. Only a few studies
have been conducted to test its validity and most were not comprehensive
in nature.

For example, several studies in the 1980s were conducted in

Leadership Styles

which the managers who utilized the SLM rated their subordinates job
performance significantly higher than managers who did not utilize the
SLM. Unfortunately no objective measures of performance were employed.
In addition, the SLM has been criticized for multiple reasons on theoretical
grounds for the reason that there is little academic justification for the
SLMs style classifications as well as multiple arguments against the validity
of the LEAD (Butler & Reese, 1991).
Basic assumptions the SLM makes also added to the critical views of
the model. According to Graeff (1983), multiple features of the SLM such
as assumptions of the job maturity aspects of the model appear to question
its theoretical soundness and restrict its practical use. The author concedes
that the SLM makes minor contributions to the leadership arena as the
model does correctly focus on the truly situational nature of leadership and
the need for flexibility on the leaders behalf.

Blank, Weitzel & Green

(1990) supported Graeffs findings and reported the SLM focuses on only
one situational variable (subordinate maturity) as a moderator of two leader
behaviors (task and relationship) and leader effectiveness.

The authors

research raises more questions than answers about SLM and indicates the
need for more empirical studies.
Butler & Reese (1991) conducted a study in which they examined the
relationship between 675 insurance salespersons performance and their 41
branch managers who employed SLM leadership styles.

The researchers

reported that the data did not support the hypothesis the SLM leadership

Leadership Styles

styles were associated with superior sales performance. In fact, the SLM
leadership styles were associated with inferior performance. Another facet
of the study tested the four styles of the SLM.

Insurance agents who

preferred the telling (high task/low relationship) had a higher job

performance than the agent who preferred other styles. The researchers
suggest these findings defy the logic on which the SLM is founded.

The

findings also suggest the SLM is incomplete in its description of leadership

styles and the situations facing the leader. But the simplicity of SLM is one
reason for its popularity.

III. Transactional Theory of Leadership

Transactional theory, as its name implies, involves a transaction or quid
pro quo between a supervisor and a subordinate.

The type of the

transaction, whether a reward or discipline, depends on the employees

performance. Bass (1985) theorized the transactional leaders appeal to the
subordinates self interests (as cited by Chan, 2005). Transactional leaders
attempt to meet the current needs of their subordinates through bargaining
and exchanging.
agreed-upon

Transactional leaders expect their followers to attain

goals

without

encouraging

them

to

take

on

greater

responsibilities for self-development or leading others. There is no attempt

to change followers attitudes, values, growth, and development on a longterm basis. Both leaders and followers focus on achieving the negotiated

Leadership Styles
performance level (Chan, 2005).

10

A transactional leader motivates

subordinates by giving rewards for services provided. This leader clarifies

the subordinates goals and arranges contingent rewards as inducements
toward the achievement of the goals (Singer and Singer, 1990).
One might theorize transactional leaders would have the greatest
effect on patrol officers productivity such as the number of arrests, reports
or citations for the reason that supervisors can set clear quantitative
expectations

that

are

easily

monitored

(Engel

&

Worden,

2003).

Leadership behaviors that emphasize telling or controlling would be

classified as transactional leadership because rewards and discipline are
administered according to adherence or deviation from instructions.
Transactional leadership is a reinforcement technique requiring constant
application. There are two main components of transactional leadership contingent reward and management-by-exception.

Contingent reward is

when the leader provides rewards if the subordinate performs in

accordance with the performance expectations or expends the necessary
effort (Densten, 1999).

The contingent reward aspect of transactional

leadership should also relate positively to performance in that these leaders

clarify expectations and recognize achievements that positively contribute
to higher levels of effort and performance (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson,
2003).

Management-by-exception represents the taking of action by the

leader when the follower does not meet the performance expectations
(Densten, 1999). In the management-by-exception approach, transactional

Leadership Styles

11

leaders clarify expectations, specify standards for compliance, define what

constitutes ineffective performance, and monitor closely to ensure that
deviances and errors are corrected promptly (Bass, Avolio, Jung, and
Berson, 2003 cited by Chan, 2005).

Van Maanens Station House Sergeant vs. Street Sergeant

Through extensive work with patrol officers and patrol sergeants in a
large urban police department, Van Maanen (1983, 1985) identified two
distinct types of patrol sergeants - the station house sergeant and the
street sergeant. The first type, identified as the station house sergeant,
personified the characteristics common to the transactional leadership
style.

Station house sergeants spent the majority of their time in the

station, dealing with administrative issues such as processing paperwork.

Rarely did they directly supervise their subordinates in the field.

They

preferred to control officer behavior through their authority to grant favors

such as days off, choice assignments, and the ability to earn overtime pay.
Van Maanen (1985) found that if given a choice, patrol officers preferred to
work for the station house type of sergeant. This was because they had less
direct supervision, more opportunities to conduct personal business on duty,
and less pressure to be proactive. The second type of sergeant, the street
sergeant, personified the characteristics common to the transformational
leadership style and is discussed later in this paper (Van Maanen, 1983 &
1985 as cited by Johnson, 2006).

Leadership Styles

12

Engels Four Supervisory Styles

Studying 322 patrol officers as well as 81 sergeants and lieutenants in
two agencies, Engel (2001) identified four distinct supervisory styles among
patrol supervisors. They were labeled as traditional, innovative, supportive
and active.

Three of these supervisory styles, specifically traditional,

innovative and supportive, were variations of the transactional style of

leadership.

The traditional style of supervision is characterized by

supervisors who expect their officers to produce measurable outcomes such

as arrests, reports, citations, etc.

The traditional supervisors expect

aggressive enforcement from their officers, but expect little relative to

quality of life issues or community policing-related issues. The supervisors
are likely to make the decisions as they took over calls or tell the officers
how to handle their calls.

Their main concern is to control subordinate

behavior. The innovative supervisor expects their subordinates to engage in

community oriented policing. They are less concerned with enforcing rules,
report writing or other tasks deemed important by the traditional
supervisors. They excel as mentoring and coaching their subordinates. The
supportive supervisors encourage and praise their officers more and
maintain good relations with them. They may provide a buffer between their
officers and management to protect them from criticism and discipline.
They are more likely to praise their subordinates and are not task oriented
(Engel, 2000 & 2001). Johnson (2006) also classifies these three styles as
variations of the transactional style of leadership.

Leadership Styles

13

Does the Transactional Theory Lend Itself to Increased Employee

Performance?
Transactional leaders achieve compliance from subordinates through
an exchange of rewards for services. For example, transactional leaders will
offer raises or promotions for higher work productivity. The weakness of
this leadership style is that employees are not invested in their work and
once rewards become unavailable, it is difficult to continue to motivate
them (Johnson, 2006).
According to Bass (1985) and House (1996), a transactional approach is
deficient for long-term development, which normally entails significant
individual

and

organizational

change.

While

many

leaders

utilize

transactional leadership, they fail to constantly apply this behavior because

of lack of time, inadequate opportunities to observe, ineffective appraisal
systems, doubts about positive reinforcement effectiveness, and lack of
skills. The negative aspects of leadership behaviors are associated with
transactional leadership. One of the most interesting findings of a study of
480 senior Australian law enforcement officers was the prevalence of the
transactional theorys management-by-exception over other leadership
behaviors. The significantly higher level of management-by-exception
indicates that leaders of senior officers are mainly passive and focus on
correcting deviations from the status quo. Several previous perceptions of

Leadership Styles

14

police leadership support this finding, such as police leaders being after
the fact supervisors.

It is suggested that high levels of transactional

leadership indicate only basic leadership competency among leaders.

Therefore, in the Australian law enforcement study, it appears that leaders
only demonstrate basic leadership capabilities, which may reflect the lack of
formal leadership training.

Despite the shortcomings of transactional

leadership which prevailed in this law enforcement environment, the

findings amazingly indicated a relatively high level of follower satisfaction
with this leadership behavior.

As the author noted, the relatively high

follower satisfaction level with such a negative form of leadership behavior

was surprising and requires further investigation (Densten, 1999).
Under Van Maanens Station House Sergeant vs. Street Sergeant
theory, the patrol officers of the Station House Sergeant (i.e., the
transactional leader) were significantly less productive and less compliant
with rules and directives than employees of the Street Sergeant (i.e., the
transformational leader) (Van Maanen, 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson,
2005).
Under Engels (2001) four supervisory styles theory, all of Engels
(2001) leadership styles influenced subordinates to some degree. The three
leadership styles that were classified as variations of transactional
leadership, specifically traditional, innovative, and supportive leadership
styles, were found to have limited influence (Johnson, 2006). In fact, Engel

Leadership Styles

15

(2000 & 2001) suggests the active supervisor (the transformational style of
leadership) has the most influence over their subordinates behavior.

IV. Transformational Theory of Leadership

Transformational leadership is the leaders ability to motivate followers
to rise above their own personal goals for the greater good of the
organization (Bass, 1985, 1996 as cited by Murphy & Drodge, 2004).

Bass

(1985) theorized the transformational style of leadership comes from deeply

held personal values which cannot be negotiated and appeals to the
subordinates sense of moral obligation and values (as cited by Chan, 2005).
Transformational leaders go beyond transactional leadership and are
characterized as visionary, articulate, assured, and able to engender
confidence in others so as to motivate them to surpass their usual
performance goals (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky and Agassi, 2001, p 277).
The transformational leaders attempt to stimulate the undeveloped or
dormant needs of their subordinates (Chan, 2005).

Bass declared there

were four types of transformational leadership behavior, namely idealized

influence (charisma), inspirational motivation, individualized consideration,
and intellectual stimulation (Densten, 1999).
Idealized influence represents role-modeling behavior where
the leader instills pride, faith, and respect, and has a gift for
seeing what is really important, and transmits a sense of
mission. Inspirational motivation represents the use of images

Leadership Styles

16

and symbols that enable the leader to raise the expectations

and beliefs of their follower concerning the mission and vision.
Individualized consideration represents providing experiential
learning and occurs when the leader delegates a project,
provides coaching and teaching, and treats each follower as an
individual.

Intellectual

stimulation

represents

cognitive

development of the follower and occurs when the leader

arouses followers to think in new ways and emphasizes
problem solving and the use of reasoning before taking action
(Johnson, 2006).
Transformational

leaders

encourage

their

subordinates

to

bring

creative viewpoints to work and stimulate a team vision through positive

motivation.

With

regards

to

the

law

enforcement

arena,

the

transformational leader expects their subordinates to be more occupied

with problem solving and community-oriented policing which more often
than not equate to lower statistics. (Engel, 2003). Transformational leaders
are expected to enhance the performance capacity of their followers by
setting higher expectations and generating a greater willingness to address
more difficult challenges (Bass and Avolio, 1997). Transformational leaders
continuously show concern for their subordinates needs, treat them with
respect and utilize a flexible approach towards them. This does not
necessarily mean that the transformational leader never resorts to
punishment or negative feedback. When these behaviors are used, they are

Leadership Styles

17

perceived or may be interpreted as exceptional and required for completing

the present task (Schwarzwald, Koslowsky, Agassi, 2001).
Transformational leadership behaviors alter the higher order needs of
followers by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and values. Such behaviors
are important to the leaders of senior police officers because they can
directly influence rank-and-file officers and any process of change.
Transformational leadership involves raising the consciousness of followers
by appealing to higher ideals and values, and moving the focus of followers
away from their self-interests encouraged by transactional leadership. In
other words, the leader encourages their followers to consider their actions
beyond simply what is in it for them.

The transformational leader

motivates subordinates by focusing them on a greater cause, such as

justice. Burns (1978) argued that transformational leaders have a more
significant

motivating

effect

on

employees

and

are

preferable

to

transactional leaders because they motivate employees to perform well even

in situations that lack any chance of receiving formal recognition.
Chan (2005) reports that over the last few decades, organizations have
had relatively significant success with various kinds of transformational
leadership models. A leading example is the Kouzes and Posners (2003)
model which offered a leadership model with five distinct practices that
outstanding leaders use to influence employees performance. This model
consists of some of the key elements of the transformational leadership
styles. The five practices of exemplary leadership are: (a) challenging the

Leadership Styles

18

process: searching and seizing challenging opportunities to change, grow,

innovate, and improve, with the willingness to take risks and learn from
mistakes; (b) inspiring a shared vision: enlisting followers support in a
shared vision by appealing to the followers values, interests, and
aspirations; (c) enabling others to act: achieving common goals by building
mutual trust, empowering followers, developing competence, assigning
critical tasks, and providing continuous support; (d) modeling the way:
being a role model and being consistent with shared values; and (e)
encouraging the heart: providing recognition for success and celebrating
accomplishments.
Van Maanens Station House Sergeant vs. Street Sergeant
As mentioned previously, Van Maanen (1983, 1985) identified two
distinct types of patrol sergeants.

The first was the station house

sergeant who personified the transactional leadership style. Van Maanens

second type of patrol sergeants, which he called the street sergeants,
personified the transformational leadership style. They spent the majority
of their time in the field directly supervising officers or engaging in patrol
work of their own. Street sergeants held characteristics similar to the
transformational leadership style through their direct support of officers in
the field and their leading by example. Officers who worked under the street
sergeant types of supervisors experienced more direct supervision, fewer
opportunities to conduct personal business or engage in loafing, and were

Leadership Styles

19

under constant pressure to produce outputs through proactive stops and

patrols (Van Maanen 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson, 2006).
Engels Four Supervisory Styles
Engel (2001) identified four distinct supervisory styles among patrol
supervisors and they were labeled as traditional, innovative, supportive and
active. As pointed out previously, the first three of these supervisory styles,
were classified as variations of the transactional style of leadership. The
fourth leadership style labeled as active was found to have the qualities of a
transformational leader.

These active style supervisors, much like Van

Maanens (1983, 1985) street sergeants, spent most of their time in the field
backing up officers on calls and engaging in their own proactive patrol
work. They directly supervised officers in the field, engaged in high levels of
proactive enforcement and problem-solving activities, and expected their
subordinates to do the same.
Murphy & Drodges Study of RCMP Detachment
Murphy and Drodge (2003) studied the leadership style of a Royal
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) detachment consisting of 28 police
officers. The overall leadership style was described as transformational
leadership in which the four Is of transformation leadership, namely
individualized consideration, idealized influence, inspirational motivation
and intellectual stimulation, were clearly present.

The study found an

essential component of the individualized consideration was to make certain

the correct personnel are placed in positions in which they have a strong

Leadership Styles
interest.

20

It was also discovered that rewarding achievements were

important as well as providing the tools necessary to perform their jobs.

The authors found that a high degree of idealized influence existed in the
detachment as the leaders had proved themselves through knowledge and
deed in order to gain the respect of the officers. Furthermore, the leaders
understood the need for a command and control style of management that
was balanced with flexibility and empowerment.

A key ingredient of

inspirational motivation, communicating the vision to all officers and

repeating it often, was evident among the detachment. This is essential to
leading the subordinates to achieve more that they originally expected to
accomplish. Intellectual stimulation was also found to be prevalent by the
authors as the leaders of the detachment were focused on continuous
employee development.

Does the Transformational Theory Lend Itself to Increased Employee

Performance?
Lowe and Kroeck (1996) reported transformational leadership has been
shown to have a positive relationship on follower performance. Another
finding

that

was

particularly

noteworthy

was

their

conclusion

transformational leadership is more highly associated with effectiveness

than transactional leadership. Their tests also suggest that leader behavior
may be more important at lower organizational levels than has been

Leadership Styles

21

generally assumed by those who view transformational leadership as

primarily a means to be utilized only by senior management. It should be
noted the authors also reported that transactional leadership is a necessary
component of effective management.
Bass and his colleagues found that although both transactional and
transformational

leadership

styles

may

both

have

positive

effects,

transformational leadership, particularly the charisma component, had the

highest association with positive outcomes. This has been demonstrated
with

various

organizational

criteria

including

commitment,

performance

and

citizenship

level,

job

behavior

satisfaction,

(Schwarzwald,

Koslowsky and Agassi, 2001).

Trust is a critical element in the successful implementation of
transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1990; Kouzes & Posner, 2003
as cited by Chan, 2005). Research has provided confirmation that trust in
superiors and influence of superiors are predictors of job performance and
job satisfaction (Goris, Vaught, and Pettit, 2003 as cited by Chan, 2005).
Research also found that found that trust affects job satisfaction and job
performance (Cunningham and MacGregor, 2000 as cited by Chan, 2005).
Previous research has associated trust in leaders with job satisfaction, job
performance, and innovative behavior (Simmons, Nelson, & Neal, 2001; Tan
& Tan, 2000 as cited by Chan, 2005).
Van Maanen found that officers preferred to work for a station house
sergeant but the majority of patrol officers had more respect for the street

Leadership Styles

22

sergeant because of this type of supervisors willingness to back them up on

calls and engage in pro-active patrol work. He also found that patrol officer
productivity and compliance with rules and directives was significantly
higher when working for a street sergeant than with a station house
sergeant, suggesting support for the effectiveness of transformational style
leadership (Van Maanen, 1983 & 1985 as cited by Johnson, 2005).

Van

Maanen (1983, p. 298 as cited by Engel, 2000) described the street

sergeant as being both admired and feared by their men and therefore
more likely to influence their subordinates behavior.
Under Engels (2001) four supervisory styles theory, all four styles
influenced subordinates to some degree but the only leadership style that
was classified as a type of transformational leadership, specifically the
active leadership style, was the most powerful motivator for the leaders
police officers. Patrol officers who worked for active style supervisors were
found to be significantly more likely to engage in proactive enforcement
activity (including traffic stops) and community problem solving than patrol
officers working for the other types of supervisors. Again, this evidence
speaks to the effectiveness of the transformational leadership style
(Johnson, 2006). Engel asserts the active supervisory style has a significant
influence on the increased likelihood of patrol officers use of force. This
discovery that officers with active supervisors are more likely to use force is
consistent with the hypothesis that supervisors with stronger supervisory
styles would be more likely to sway their subordinates behavior. Given that

Leadership Styles

23

active supervisors are in the field with their subordinates more and have
expectations of aggressive law enforcement, it is only logical when it was
determined active supervisors personally have a higher level of use of force
than other leadership styles.

It may seem to the subordinates that

aggressive tactics may be tolerated and perhaps, even expected, by their

supervisor with active leadership styles.

The author also indicates these

officers have higher arrest rates which may partially explain the higher rate
of use of force.

Additionally, the officers with active supervisors spend

much more time in self-initiated, problem-solving and community-oriented

activities.

Therefore Engels (2000 & 2001) concludes these findings

suggest the active supervisors (i.e., the transformational leader) have the
most influence over their patrol officers behavior.
Murphy and Drudge (2004) conclude that training for transformational
leadership is possible and can have positive impact on organizations. A key
is teaching leadership skills early in the leaders careers and to be a
continuous work in progress.

Additionally, it was noted the enhanced

commitment to the organizational and increased performance were

observed in subordinates after transformational leadership training.

The

authors assert transformation leadership theory is a useful model in policing

leadership.
Boerner, Eisenbeiss and Griesser (2007) stated a positive relationship
exists between transformational leadership and organizational performance
as

documented

in

previous

studies.

They

hypothesized

that

Leadership Styles

24

transformational leaders increase their followers performance and enhance

followers innovation. They also hypothesized the same would not hold true
for transactional leaders.

In their study of 91 leaders in 91 German

companies, their hypotheses were confirmed.

In a series of studies, Bass (1985) discovered subordinates satisfaction
and effectiveness ratings had higher correlations with the leaders
transformational behavior ratings than with transactional behavior ratings.
Bass also differentiated between mechanistic organizations and organic
organizations.

In mechanistic organizations, the structure is rigid and

formal; conformity rather than innovation is the norm.

In organic

organizations, the structure and goals are flexible, members are educated
and innovative, and the climate is warm and trusting.

Bass speculated

transactional leadership is more likely to be utilized in mechanistic

organizations and police forces are prime examples of mechanistic
organizations. Police forces have centralized authority, set career paths and
evaluations and utilize a hierarchical rank structure. Therefore, based on
Bass speculation, police forces leadership styles should exhibit more
transactional than transformational. Sixty New Zealand police officers were
studied by Singer and Singer (2001). It was discovered the actual leader
behavior was

significantly

more transformational

than transactional.

Additionally, the officers had a preference for transformational leadership

style over the transactional style.

The researchers results gave broad

Leadership Styles

25

supports to the hypothesis that transformational leadership style is

associated with higher level of subordinates satisfaction.
Another study conducted by Bass, Avolio, Jung, and Berson (2003) was
to examine how transactional and transformational leadership predicted
performance in U.S Army units operating under conditions of high levels of
uncertainty, challenge, and stress. Leadership ratings were compiled from
72 U.S. Army platoons during normal operational assignments. These
leadership ratings were then used to predict the performance of the platoon
units operating in a 2-week simulation that was designed to test the units
performance effectiveness under high levels of stress and uncertainty in
order to evaluate platoon performance in near-combat conditions. Results
show

that

the

platoon

leaders

transformational

and

transactional

leadership each had positive and direct relationships

with platoon

performance. The researchers reported it seemed fair to say that it took

both active transactional and transformational leadership to be successful
in this performance context.
In a study of 252 MBA students, transformational leadership was
associated with a higher level of team cohesiveness as compared to
transactional leadership. Both knowledge level and team cohesiveness
predict team performance, particularly among men.

From the overall

results, it appears that team cohesiveness and knowledge were significant

predictors of team performance. Also, as expected, transformational

Leadership Styles

26

leadership style was associated with higher levels of team cohesiveness

(Stashevsky and Koslowsky, 2006).
Masi and Cooke (2000) conducted a study of approximately 2,500 U.S.
Army personnel and found strong correlation between transformational
leadership and motivation, but weak correlation between transactional
leadership and commitment towards the achievement of organizational
outcomes. The study strongly supports that transformational leaders
empower and motivate their subordinates, while transactional leaders
suppress both commitment and productivity.
It was particularly

noteworthy

that Silvestri (2007) stated the

importance of a transformational style for the police organization should not

be underestimated. The past decade has witnessed a renewed interest in
the role of the police leader as supported by Britains creation of the
National Police Leadership Faculty and the Police Leadership Development
Board (PDLP) in 2001. The PDLP has already endorsed the need for
transformational leadership throughout the service and has commissioned
learning and development packages for its chief officers, which take into
account the principles of transformational leadership. While there are few
studies that show tangible evidence of the effects of a transformational
leadership style for the police organization, Dobby and Tuffins (2004)
recent work does provide some provisional evidence of the benefits of a
transformational approach for improving police performance. Police
leaders who displayed transformational behaviors in their study were

Leadership Styles

27

found to have a wide a range of positive effects on their subordinates

attitudes to their work as well as increasing both their job satisfaction and
their commitment to the organization. Densten (1999) also emphasizes the
potential of a transformational approach with its capacity to alter the
higher order needs of followers by changing their attitudes, beliefs and
values (p. 46). He goes on to stress that such behaviors are important to
police leaders as they can directly influence rank and file officers and any
process of change.

In short, the message is clear; masters of the use of

participatory styles are also the masters of change (p. 46).

Bass (1985) asserted that transformational leadership is more likely to
appear

in

organizations

where

members

are

highly

educated

and

innovative, goals and structures are unclear, but warmth and trust are high;
while transactional leadership is most likely appear in organizations where
goals and structures are specific and where members work are extremely
well-defined. Bass (1990) theorized that transformational leaders are role
models, admired, respected, trusted, confident, determined, persistent,
highly competent, innovative, and willing to take risks. He added that
transformational leaders also inspire their followers through coaching,
mentoring, support, encouragement, and challenge (as cited by Chan 2005).
By this explanation by Bass, law enforcement agencies would more likely
make use of the transactional leadership style rather than transformational
leadership style. This is particularly interesting due to other researchers

Leadership Styles

28

emphasizing or highly suggesting that law enforcement agencies would

benefit by utilizing the transformational theory of leadership.

V. Conclusion
Surveys of job satisfaction from the 1920s onward have uniformly
reported that leaders can make a difference in their subordinates
satisfaction and performance. Employees favorable attitudes toward their
leaders had been reported as a contributor to their job satisfaction as well
as directly related to the productivity of work groups (Bass, 1990 as cited by
Chan, 2005). What leadership style should law enforcement leaders employ
to maximize followers job performance?

Although there is a lack of

agreement in the reviewed literature, there appears to be growing support

in one theory.
A review of the literature suggests that parts of the contingency theory
of leadership underlying groundwork is flawed and based on assumptions.
It was also noted that despite the wide use of the Situational Leadership
Model (SLM) by Hersey and Blanchard (1977), most studies have been
critical of the theory.

In fact, some studies have shown a lower job

performance by followers of the leaders utilizing the SLM.

Bass, Avolio, Jung and Berson (2003) reported previous research has
shown transactional contingent reward style of leadership to be positively
related to followers commitment, satisfaction, and performance.

In

Leadership Styles

29

contrast, the transactional management-by-exception style of leadership is

associated with the negative aspects of leadership behavior.

While there

are positive aspects of the transactional theory, it has shown to have

inherent weaknesses. Additionally, the theory maybe deficient in the longterm in that it does not readily avail itself to allow for change which is
increasingly important in todays climate.
Densten (1999)

asserts that to meet the demands of modern

organizations, especially criminal justice agencies, the managers must

implement more humanistic and principle-based styles of leadership.

To

respond to these demands, the researcher believes that there is a need for
the law enforcement managers to apply transformational leadership to their
agencies.

The traditional style of management resting upon strict

managerial rules needs to be transformed by a new process based on

diverse skills, interests, and attitudes.

This form of transformational

leadership can be a valuable tool to help reform management within police

agencies.

With a better understanding of the needs and aspirations of

police employees, transformational leadership can turn traditional police

managers into effective and valuable leaders.

Such a change can make

police chiefs more competent and better equipped to handle policing in a

complex and rapidly changing society.
As

result

of

global

technological

and

social

alteration,

transformational leadership became necessary for both private and public

agencies, particularly for those in paramilitary structures, such as police

Leadership Styles

30

agencies, because interactions between supervisors and subordinates are

more crucial than ever (Ozmen, 2009).

Bono and Judge (2003) concluded

that transformational leaders could influence how followers perceive their

work activities and that these perceptions resulted in an increase in the
followers job satisfaction, commitment, and performance. Whether called
active, street sergeants, etc., strong indications are that transformational
leaders affect their subordinates behavior and effectiveness more (Johnson,
2006).
In contrast to other researchers, Engel concedes none of the four
supervisory styles indentified in her research should be consider the ideal
standard for police supervision.
styles

identified

transformational.

in

her

It should be noted the three of Engels

research

are

transactional

and

one

is

There are pros and cons associated with each style. The

appropriate style of leadership for departments would differ depending on

the agencys organizational goals (Engel, 2001).

This assessment is

supported by Conger (2004) who argued that transformational leadership is

a principally normative model, which takes a single approach to practicing
leadership

across

levels

but

it

does

not

considering

situational

contingencies (as cited by Chan, 2005). The study by Bass, Avolio, Jung,
and Berson (2003) of 72 U.S. Army platoon performance in near-combat
conditions

illustrated

the

platoon

leaders

transformational

and

transactional leadership each had positive and direct relationships with

platoon performance.

Leadership Styles

31

Therefore this paper concludes there is a sufficient quantity of

information which suggests the flawed contingency theory has lost
popularity with practitioners as well as theorists. Transactional theory is to
some

extent

effective

but

not

necessarily

the

optimal

theory.

Transformational theory is the foremost leadership theory to optimize job

performance at this point of time. But there is some evidence in studies
that hint that a blend of transactional and transformational theories of
leadership may be the style of leadership to be examined further to optimize
job performance, especially in military and para-military organizations such
as law enforcement agencies.

Leadership Styles

32

References
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New
York: Free Press.
Bass,

B.

M.,

&

Avolio,

B.

J.

(1990).

Transformational

leadership

development: Manual
for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1997). Full range leadership development:
Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit
performance
by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of
Applied
Psychology, 88, 207-218.
Blank, Warren, Weitzel, John R., & Green, Stephen G... (1990). A Test of the
Situational Leadership
Theory. Personnel Psychology, 43(3), 579.
Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and
organizational
performance: The impact of transformational leaders. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(3), 15-26.
doi:10.1177/10717919070130030201.

Leadership Styles
Bono,

J.,

&

Judge,

T.

(2003).

Self-Concordance

at

Work:

33

Toward

Understanding the Motivational

Effects of Transformational Leaders. Academy of Management Journal,
46(5), 554-571.
Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Bruns,

G.,

&

Shuman,

I.

(1988).

Police

managers'

perception

of

organizational leadership styles.

Public Personnel Management, 17(2), 145-157.
Bryan, Suzette Plaisance (2002). Cognitive complexity, transformational
leadership, and organizational outcomes. Ph.D. dissertation, Louisiana State
University and Agricultural &
Mechanical College, United States -- Louisiana. Retrieved February 13,
2010, from
ABI/INFORM Global.(Publication No. AAT 3049195).
Buchanan, K. (2006, September 4). Job Performance and Satisfaction.
Retrieved March 2, 2010,
from

http://ezinearticles.com/?Job-Performance-and--

Satisfaction&id=290072
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Butler, John K., Jr., & Reese, Richard M. (1991). Leadership Style and Sales
Performance: A Test of
the Situational Leadership Model. The Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales

Leadership Styles

34

Management, 11(3), 37.

Chan, Donna Suk-Hing (2005). Relationship between generation-responsive
leadership behaviors
and job satisfaction of generations X and Y professionals. D.M.
dissertation, University of Phoenix, United States - Arizona. Retrieved
February 13, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Publication No. AAT
3194291).
Conger, J. A. (2004). Developing leadership capability: Whats inside the
black box. Academy of
Management Executive, 18(3), 136-139. Retrieved February 26, 2005,
from EBSCOhost
database.
Cunningham, J., & MacGregor, J. (2000, December). Trust and the design of
work:
Complementary constructs in satisfaction and performance. Human
Relations, 53,
1575-1591. Retrieved October 24, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Deluga, R., & Souza, J. (1991). The effects of transformational and
transactional leadership styles on
the influencing behaviour of subordinate police officers. Journal of
Occupational Psychology,
64(1), 49-55. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Leadership Styles

35

Densten, I. L. (1999). Senior Australian law enforcement leadership under

examination. Policing and
International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 22(1), 4557.
Dobby, J., Anscombe, J., & Tuffin, R. (2004). Police leadership: Expectations
and

impact.

London:

Home

Office

Research.

Retrieved

from

www.csa.com

Engel, R. S. (2000). The effects of supervisory style on patrol officer

behavior. Police Quarterly, 3(3),
Engel, R. S. (2001). Supervisory Styles of Patrol Sergeants and Lieutenants.
Journal of
Criminal Justice, 29(4), 341355.
Engel, R. S. (2003). Influence of Supervisor Style on Patrol Officer Behavior.
Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice. Holland, C. A., & Conner, M. T. (1996).
Engel, Robin S. & Worden, Robert E Worden. (2003). Police officers'
attitudes, behavior, and
supervisory

influences:

An

analysis

of

problem

solving*. Criminology, 41(1), 131.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967).
McGraw-Hill

A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York:

Leadership Styles

36

Goris, J. R., Vaught, B. C., & Pettit, J. D. (2003, Spring). Effects of trust in
superiors and
influence of superiors on the association between individual job
congruence and
job performance/satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(3),
327343. Retrieved November 18, 2004, from EBSCOhost database.
Graef, Claude L. (1983). The Situational Leadership Theory: A Critical
View. Academy of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 285.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of Organization
Behavior: Utilizing Human
Resources, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall
House, R. J. (1996). Path-Goal Theory of Leadership Lessons, Legacy and
a Reformulated
Theory, Leadership Quarterly, Vol 7 No 3, pp 323-352
House, R. J.

(1971), A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness,

Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16 (September), 321-338
Johnson, R. R. (2006). Management influences on officer traffic enforcement
productivity. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 8(3),
205-217.

Leadership Styles

37

Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (2007). The leadership challenge (4th ed.). San
Francisco, CA US: JosseyBass. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). Encouraging the heart: A leaders
guide to
rewarding and recognizing others. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lowe, K., Kroeck, K., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Effectiveness
correlates of transformation
and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ
literature. The Leadership
Quarterly, 7(3), 385-425. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90027-2.
Masi, R., & Cooke, R. (2000). Effects of transformational leadership on
subordinate motivation,
empowering norms, and organizational productivity. International
Journal of Organizational
Analysis, 8(1), 16-47. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Murphy, Steven A., Drodge, Edward N. (2004) International Journal of Police
Science &
Management; Vol 6 Issue 1, p1-15
Ozmen, A. (2009). An analytical study of the impact of the perception of
leadership styles on job
satisfaction within the Turkish national police based on the Multifactor
Leadership

Leadership Styles

38

Questionnaire. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 69,

Retrieved from PsycINFO.
Performance. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 14,
2010, from Dictionary.com
website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/performance
Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2001). Captain's leadership
type and police officers'
compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work & Organizational
Psychology, 10(3),
273. Retrieved from Business Source Premier database.
Silvestri, M. (2007). Doing Police Leadership: Enter the New Smart
Macho. Policing and
Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 17(1), 38-58.
Simmons, B. L., Nelson, D. L., & Neal, L. J. (2001). A comparison of the
positive and
negative work attitudes of home health care and hospital nurses.
Health Care
Management Review, 26(3), 63-74. Retrieved December 20, 2004, from
EBSCOhost database.
Singer, M., & Singer, A. (2001). Situational constraints on transformational
versus transactional
leadership

behavior,

satisfaction. The Journal of

subordinates'

leadership

preference,

and

Leadership Styles

39

Social Psychology, 130(3), 385-396. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Standing Bear, Zug Galafa. (1986). Police leadership styles: An empirical
investigation of the
relationships between perceived leader effectiveness and prescriptive
leadership. Ann Arbor,
MI: University Microfilms International.
Stashevsky,

Shmuel & Koslowsky,

Meni. (2006).

Leadership

team

cohesiveness and team

performance. International

Journal

of

Manpower: Leadership

in

organizations, 27(1), 63-74.

Retrieved February 13, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document
ID: 1073422021).
Tan, H. H., & Tan, F. F. (2000, May). Toward the differentiation of trust in
supervisor
and trust in organization. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs,
126(2), 241-260. Retrieved November 17, 2004, from EBSCOhost
database.
Van Maanen, J. (1983). Boss: First line supervision in an American police
agency. In M. Punch (Ed.),
Control in the Police Organization (pp. 275317). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.

Leadership Styles

40

Van Maanen, J. (1985). Making Rank: Becoming an American police

sergeant. Urban Life, 13(1),
(pp. 155176).
Vroom, V. H. and Jago, A. G., (1988), The New Leadership: Managing
Participation in
Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Williams, J. (2004). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment, a Sloan
Work and Family
Encyclopedia entry. Retrieved May 10, 2007, from Sloan Work & Family
Research Network
website:

http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/encyclopedia_entry.php?

id=244&area=academics.