Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management

Emphasizing the servant in public service: the opinions of police managers

Gennaro F. Vito Geetha Suresh George E. Richards
Article information:
To cite this document:
Gennaro F. Vito Geetha Suresh George E. Richards, (2011),"Emphasizing the servant in public service: the
opinions of police managers", Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 34
Iss 4 pp. 674 - 686
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13639511111180270
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Downloaded on: 11 March 2015, At: 22:10 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 48 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1128 times since 2011*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Mary B. Sarver, Holly Miller, (2014),"Police chief leadership: styles and effectiveness", Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 37 Iss 1 pp. 126-143 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-03-2013-0028
Simon C.H. Chan, Wai-ming Mak, (2014),"The impact of servant leadership and subordinates'
organizational tenure on trust in leader and attitudes", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 2 pp. 272-287 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2011-0125
Geoff Dean, Petter Gottschalk, (2013),"Police leadership roles: empirical study of management attitudes",
International Journal of Law and Management, Vol. 55 Iss 4 pp. 304-317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
IJLMA-06-2012-0016

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 540409 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


PIJPSM
34,4
674
Received 4 August 2010
Revised 1 November 2010
Accepted 27 November 2010
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)
Policing: An International Journal of
Police Strategies & Management
Vol. 34 No. 4, 2011
pp. 674-686
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1363-951X
DOI 10.1108/13639511111180270
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.htm
Emphasizing the servant in public
service: the opinions of police
managers
Gennaro F. Vito and Geetha Suresh
Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville,
Kentucky, USA, and
George E. Richards
Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice,
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania, Edinboro, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to determine the opinion of 126 police managers from 23 US
states regarding their ideal leadership style as expressed under the items of the leader behavior
description questionnaire (LBDQ).
Design/methodology/approach – Police managers attending a management course – the
Administrative Officer’s Course at the Southern Police Institute during the academic year
2007-2008 – were surveyed regarding their opinions of ideal leadership styles. They responded to
items on the leadership behavior questionnaire. The analysis is based on this survey.
Findings – Item analysis of their responses revealed the existence of three subscales (servant,
autocratic, and laissez-faire leadership), ANOVA revealed a strong preference for the style of servant
leadership. These results indicate that these police managers believe that leaders should follow the
tenets of servant leadership. They rejected the creeds of both the autocratic, command and control
method and the hands-off, detached style of laissez-faire leadership. Policing has been long considered
an autocratic, quasi-military organization, yet these police managers expressed a decided preference
for servant leadership.
Research limitations/implications – Taking into account the limitations of the data set used in
current analyses, the sample characteristics and the sample size, results should be interpreted
cautiously. The sample used in this analysis is not a probability sample and cannot be considered
representative for the entire population of American police officers. Because this is only an exploratory
analysis, the sample used was relatively small. In addition, the LBDQ may not be the most appropriate
scale to assess levels of servant leadership. Future studies on this subject and population should take
heed of these limitations. However, due to the positive responses received from this sample concerning
the applicability of servant leadership in police organizations, justification for further research on this
subject is warranted.
Originality/value – The results indicate this sample of police managers believe that leaders should
follow the tenets of servant leadership as expressed under the items of the leader behavior description
questionnaire. Compared to these values, they rejected the creeds of both the autocratic, command and
control method and the hands-off, detached style of laissez-faire leadership. Policing has been long
considered an autocratic, quasi-military organization, yet these police managers expressed a decided
preference for the style of servant leadership. Perhaps a new wave of leaders is coming to policing with
different ways of thinking about how the organization should operate.
Keywords Leadership, Management, Middle management, Police, Attitudes, United States of America
Paper type Research paper
 Introduction Emphasizing
Organizational managers are continually searching for effective and appropriate
leadership styles. Police departments are no exception to this process as they seek
the servant
ways to work with the community to solve the problem of crime. Villiers (2003, p. 33)
notes that police leaders motivate their followers to:
.
transcend self-interest for the sake of organizational goals and values;
.
raise their need level up from security and safety to self-esteem or autonomy; and 675
. share with the leader a common vision of the importance of the leader’s goals or
values to the future of the organization.
Thus, followers of police leaders can achieve more than they thought possible,
strengthen their commitment to the organization, and raise the performance level of
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

their organization.
Leadership is not limited to the top executive level and can be exercised by persons
across the entire department. Haberfeld (2006, p. 3) asserts that line officers are “the
true leaders on the streets, using their leadership skills in daily encounters with the
community, and police executives and policy makers need to realize it” (Haberfeld,
2006, p. 3). Baker (2006, p. 41) contends that effective leadership is exercised by police
managers in at different levels that are appropriate to their tasks. Senior leadership
should spend its time developing and sharing the vision for the organization, charting
the journey by establishing strategic objectives and practicing collaboration and
delegation of tasks. Police middle managers coordinate and plan, mentor and coach,
build teams and empower and reward their subordinates. First-line supervisors
provide leadership by example, supervising and training teams while evaluating
performance.

Literature review: styles of police leadership

The literature on police leadership reveals that distinct styles have been exercised in
different ways. In an early study of 155 police managers, Kuykendall and Unsinger
(1982) reported that “salesman” was the most commonly reported leadership style. The
respondents noted that they viewed themselves as team managers who avoided “risky”
styles and especially avoided the delegation of high-level tasks to their subordinates.
Apparently, these police managers lacked both trust and confidence in the abilities of
their followers. Yet, Bruns and Shuman (1988) surveyed 365 law enforcement officers
in ten managerial training programs in Arizona from 1978-1982 and found that the
respondents clearly supported a highly participative management style for police
leaders.
Girodo (1998) surveyed police chiefs from departments around the world,
characterizing their leadership style under four categories. Transformational leaders
were considerate, charismatic, and personable. Bureaucratic leaders identified with the
management of a police organization structured by its rules. Social contract leaders felt
that their approach was professional. However, most the police chief respondents
identified with the Machiavellian model that stressed the manipulation of subordinates
to achieve management ends. Girodo felt that the paramilitary structure of police
departments was responsible for this authoritarian leadership style.
The bureaucratic structure of police departments has also been cited as a major
source of an authoritarian leadership style. Mayo (1985, p. 411) asserts that police
 PIJPSM chiefs spend too much of their time directing the daily operations of their departments
34,4 because they have little faith in the talents and loyalties of their subordinates and fail
to pay attention to long term, strategic issues facing their departments. Archambeault
and Weirman (1983) contend that the bureaucratic model of police departments results
in a work environment that discourages productivity, initiative, and commitment
among its work force members. It also promotes the pursuit of individual self-interest
676 and adversarial relationships between police managers and their employees, “game
playing” and an impersonal work climate.
Stamper (1992) surveyed 52 police chiefs and 92 of their immediate assistants from
departments that served populations of at least 200,000 in 28 states. His results noted a
clear discrepancy between belief and practice among these chiefs. They felt that they
placed a premium on sharing their vision of the future, practicing openness and
honesty, fostering teamwork by helping their employees get the work done and
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

recognizing excellence in performance. Externally, they promoted questioning of

agency policies while working closely with the members of their community. They
professed the adoption of an intuitive and creative approach to their work while taking
a stand against discriminatory practices. They also felt that these leadership functions
were most deserving of their time and attention on the job.
However, their immediate assistants did not perceive that the behavior of the chiefs
was consistent with their expressed beliefs about leadership. They felt that the chiefs
tended to be much more involved in the technical and procedural aspects of
management than their leadership functions. These findings led Stamper to conclude
that leadership had been “structured out” of police administration. In his opinion,
police chiefs spend too much time and attention to management concerns and fail to
truly lead their departments.
Recent studies assessing the state of police leadership have been more positive.
Densten (2003) surveyed 480 Australian senior police officials. He reported that the
effectiveness of a police leader was a function of: leader reputation and followers’
satisfaction with job performance of their leaders; impression management and image
building by leaders; how dependent followers are on direction and resources from the
followers and how dependent leaders are upon the follower’s completion of activities to
achieve success (Densten, 2003, p. 412).
Murphy and Drodge (2004) interviewed 28 Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers
on their views of police leadership within the framework of transformational
leadership theory. The heart of transformational leadership theory is the “Four I’s”
(Murphy and Drodge, 2004, pp. 2-3):
(1) Idealized influence. The leader stands for something that followers aspire to.
(2) Inspirational motivation. A sense of collective identity inspired by the leader’s
vision.
(3) Intellectual stimulation. Challenges followers to examine ways to enhance their
productivity.
(4) Individualized consideration to followers.

The RCMP officers stressed that leaders can emerge at all levels of the organization
and that leadership skills can be learned. They stressed the significance of the “Four
I’s” and how leaders must be genuinely concerned with the needs of followers.
 Similarly, interviews with 150 British officers revealed that they wanted leaders to Emphasizing
make them feel proud of their work and their contributions. Effective leadership
involved offering high quality service, maintaining high personal and professional
the servant
standards, empowering staff, and the possession of relevant knowledge and skills. The
way officers feel about how they are treated by the organization affects both the quality
of their performance and the service they provide to the community (Dobby et al., 2004).
The competency and background of police executives was also found to influence 677
their leadership reputation. Krimmel and Lindemuth (2001) analysis of 205 municipal
managers in Pennsylvania revealed that these managers ranked the performance of
police chiefs who managed a union shop, had some college credits, who were graduates
of the FBI National Academy, and who were promoted from within consistently higher
than those who did not possess these attributes. Similarly, Rowe’s (2006) ethnography of
British police officers determined that superiors who had direct experience with and
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

maintained their ties with the street where “real police work” was done were considered
the best leaders. Those management supervisors who moved up the ranks without such
experience were viewed with suspicion and were less likely to be accepted.
Fischer’s (2009) interviews with 25 American police chiefs stress that police leaders
must be both honest and transparent in their dealings with their subordinates, set a
good example of performance and integrity, be a change agent that moves the agency
forward, support and honor the performance of your charges. They should be
“consensus builders” and they should follow a democratic approach when leading their
departments (Fischer, 2009, p. 10). Isenberg’s (2010) survey of 26 American police
chiefs mirrors these opinions. These chiefs also stressed the need for leaders to be
optimistic role models who breed confidence in their agency and the community that it
serves. They should be unafraid to set goals that involve risk (Isenberg, 2010, p. 42).
They recommended the use of a leadership style that is inclusive and seeks the support
of all members of the organization (Isenberg, 2010, p. 44).
This literature review reveals that police operatives at different levels of the
organization view the purpose and nature of police leadership in diverse ways. The top
executives express the need for a more participatory style yet appear to be constrained
by bureaucratic structure and the lack of confidence in the abilities of their
subordinates. Police managers express a desire for consultation and also direction from
competent and experienced police chiefs.
Here, we assess the leadership style preferences of police managers attending the
Administrative Officer’s Course at the University of Louisville’s Southern Police
Institute. The respondents were asked to express these preferences in response to the
leadership behavior description questionnaire form XII (Stogdill, 1963).

The leadership behavior description questionnaire (LBDQ)

The Ohio State Leadership studies were designed to identify and describe categories of
leadership behavior. The leader behavior description questionnaire (LBDQ) was
designed by the Personnel Research Board of The Ohio State University. The
instrument directs respondents to describe the behaviors of leaders in any type of
organization. It was utilized in this study because it is accessible, can be easily
interpreted, and has been proven to be a valid and reliable measure of leadership
behavior, even when applied to modest samples. It has 100 items scored as: 1 (never),
2 (seldom), 3 (occasionally), 4 (often) and 5 (always)[1]. It also has 12 subscale
components that describe leadership behavior attributes (Stogdill, 1963, pp. 4-5):
 PIJPSM (1) Demand reconciliation. The leader should reconcile conflicting demands and
34,4 reduce disorder to system.
(2) Role assumption. The leader should actively exercise the leadership role rather
than surrendering leadership to others.
(3) Persuasiveness. The leader should use persuasion and argument effectively, and
678 should exhibit strong convictions.
(4) Initiation of structure. The leader should clearly define their role and their
expectations of followers.
(5) Consideration. The leader should be concerned with the comfort, well being,
status, and contributions of followers.
(6) Integration. The leader should maintain a closely knit organization and should
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

resolve inter-member conflicts.

(7) Predictive accuracy. The leader should exhibit foresight and ability to accurately
predict future outcomes.
(8) Superior orientation. The leader should maintain cordial and influential
relations with superiors and should strive for higher status.
(9) Representation. The leader should speak and act as the representative of the
group.
(10) Tolerance of uncertainty. The leader should be able to tolerate uncertainty and
postponement without getting anxious or upset.
(11) Tolerance and freedom. The leader should allow followers scope for initiative,
decision, and action.
(12) Production emphasis. The leader should apply pressure for productive output.

Statistical analysis of the LBDQ with a sample of military and civilian personnel then
revealed two leadership orientations (Fleishman, 1953; Halpin and Winer, 1957;
Hemphill and Coons, 1957). The distinction, first presented in leadership research by
Bales (1950), refers to:
.
Worker-centered leadership – (labeled “consideration” in the OSU studies) –
a socio-emotional orientation, suggesting concern for morale and relationships
among members. The leader expresses consideration of follower’s feelings,
opinions and ideas, and tries to maintain an amiable working environment. The
leader tends to nurture genial relationships between workers. The aim is to foster
the growth of trust between the leader and the followers.
.
Task-centered leadership – (labeled “initiation of structure” in the OSU studies)
– included behavior such as having subordinates following rules and
procedures, created structure in any task related behaviors involved in the
initiation of action, the organization and assignment of duties, and the
determination of clear-cut standards of performance. Here, the leader’s behavior
is focused on organizing work relationships and clearly defining the leader’s and
subordinates’ roles. The emphasis is upon establishing good communication and
effective ways of completing tasks (Northouse, 2010, pp. 70-71; Yukl, 2006,
pp. 51-53).
 In general, research on the LBDQ has determined that both initiation of structure and Emphasizing
consideration were important aspects of effective leadership (Eagly and Johnson, 1990, the servant
p. 236). Additional research examined the effect of the respondent’s socio-demographic
characteristics on leadership behavior preferences. Using a sample of 1,009
respondents from three mid-western organizations, Boatwright and Forrest (2000)
found, after controlling for organizational variables, older, better educated and more
experienced workers were more likely to prefer a task-centered leadership orientation, 679
while younger, less educated, and less experienced workers tended to prefer a
worker-centered leadership orientation. The authors noted after age and education
were controlled for, female employees appeared to prefer a worker-centered leadership
orientation significantly more often than male employees. Post-hoc analyses revealed
no significant gender differences in preferences for task-centered leadership behaviors.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Methodology
Our analysis is based on a survey of 126 police managers from 23 US states, who
attended the Administrative Officer’s Course at the Southern Police Institute during the
academic year 2007-2008 (n ¼ 126), Although respondents had managerial positions
when they enrolled in the course, they have been asked to place themselves in the
position of a subordinate and select the characteristics of the leader they would like to
have. The survey was conducted in the beginning of a course on leadership at the
AOC/SPI[2]. Like the previously mentioned analyses of police leadership, this study
used a non-random sample. However, due to the fact respondents typically enrolled in
this course to enhance their leadership styles, the sample could be also considered a
purposive or judgment sample (see Nardi, 2006, p. 119).

Research findings
Demographics
The majority of the respondents were in the 35-44 age group (61.7 percent) (Table I).
They were also predominantly male (61.7 percent), Caucasian (85.9 percent), and highly
educated (over 70 percent were college graduates). They were likely to serve in very
large (more than 500 sworn officers) to medium sized municipal police departments
(76-200 sworn officers, total ¼ 57 percent) and were sergeants (45.3 percent) and
lieutenants (35.2 percent) assigned to patrol (58.6 percent)[3].

Survey analysis
The analysis of the scale items revealed factor loadings on three components that
correspond to three leadership styles:
(1) Servant leadership. This style is people-oriented. The leader is motivated to help
subordinates achieve goals and objectives in the service of their clientele. The
focus is upon the establishment of positive relationships based upon mutual
respect and trust. Subordinates are consulted and their ideas are considered and
drawn upon.
(2) Autocratic leadership. Here, obtaining and maintaining power is the foremost
goal of the leader. They make all decisions and give orders rather than invite
group participation.
 PIJPSM
Variable %
34,4
Age
25-34 8.6
35-44 61.7
45-54 28.1
680 55-64 1.6

Sex
Male 88.3
Female 11.7

Race
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Caucasian 85.9
African American 7.8
Hispanic 3.1
Asian 0.8
Other 2.3

Education
High school graduate 2.3
Some college 27.3
College graduate 33.6
Some professional/graduate school 21.1
Professional/graduate school degree 15.6

Agency size/type
Very large municipal police dept. 32.0
Large municipal police dept. 11.7
Medium-size municipal police dept. 13.3
Small municipal police dept. 15.6
State police 7.0
Sheriff’s office 17.2
Other 3.1

Current assignment
Patrol 58.6
Detective/investigative 12.5
Special operations 12.5
Communications 0.8
Other 15.6

Current rank
Sergeant 45.3
Lieutenant 35.2
Captain 14.1
Table I. Major 2.3
Demographic attributes Deputy Sheriff 0.8
of survey respondents Other 2.3
 (3) Laissez-faire leadership. Laissez-faire leadership is a hands-off approach to Emphasizing
organizational leadership. The leader abandons and abdicates their main function the servant
and serves largely as a conduit of information, exercising little or no control. As a
result, the organization runs itself with little or no input from management.

The mean values and other statistics for these subscales are presented in Table II.
Each of the subscales had acceptable values of Cronbach’s Alpha that attested to the 681
validity of the factors. The grand mean values clearly indicated these police managers
expressed strong beliefs in the value of servant leadership over those for autocratic and
laissez-faire leadership styles. ANOVA revealed the mean difference between the mean
values for the servant; autocratic and laissez-faire leadership subscales were
statistically significant. These police leaders believe the ideal police leader should
express and follow the values of servant leadership.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

The top ten mean values for items on the LBDQ scale are listed in Table III. Here
again, we can see these police managers preferred that their leaders serve their
organizations, not just lead them from an autocratic stance. A clear preference was
expressed for leaders who would let organizational members know what was expected
of them while looking out for their welfare yet hold them accountable to maintain

Mean Mean
No. of Eigen Cronbach’s Grand value value
Type items value Alpha mean SD variable variable F Significance

Servant, autocratic and laissez-faire leadership

Servant
leadership 35 10.17 0.92 3.24 0.37
Autocratic
leadership 12 3.47 0.76 2.60 0.41
Laissez-faire
leadership 8 2.79 0.70 2.50 0.47

Servant Autocratic 2.58 0.000 Table II.

Servant Laissez- Subscale values and
faire 3.95 0.000 ANOVA results

Item Mean

Let group members know what is expected of them 3.62

Look out for the personal welfare of the group members 3.60
Maintain definite standards of performance 3.57
Encourage initiative in the group members 3.57
Make accurate decisions 3.56
Inspire enthusiasm for a project 3.52
Handle complex problems efficiently 3.46 Table III.
Remain calm when uncertain about coming events 3.45 Attributes of servant
Anticipate problems and plan for them 3.44 leadership – the top ten
Keep the group working together as a team 3.42 mean values
 PIJPSM performance standards. They should encourage individual initiative, make accurate
34,4 decisions and inspire enthusiasm for projects.
The leader should be able to handle complex problems efficiently while remaining
calm in the face of uncertainty – anticipating problems and planning for them. Finally,
the ideal leader should keep the group working together as a team.

682
Conclusion
The results indicate this sample of police managers believe that leaders should follow
the tenets of servant leadership as expressed under the items of the leader behavior
description questionnaire. Compared to these values, they rejected the creeds of both
the autocratic, command and control method and the hands-off, detached style of
laissez-faire leadership. Policing has been long considered an autocratic, quasi-military
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

organization, yet these police managers expressed a decided preference for the style of
servant leadership. Perhaps a new wave of leaders is coming to policing with different
ways of thinking about how the organization should operate.
There are a number of distinct attributes attributed to servant leadership. For
example, Greenleaf (1977) believed leaders should serve their followers and focus upon
satisfying their needs. Servant leaders are less concerned with their personal power and
devoted to leadership through the provision of service to others. Servant leaders put the
needs of their followers above their own. It is an ethical style of leadership. The purpose
of the organization is the welfare of its members, not to gratify the ego or reputation of
the leader. For this reason, the servant leader would never take advantage of followers.
Servant leadership is based upon five basic principles:
(1) Concern for people (Dalai Lama and Muyzenberg, 2009, pp. 135-136).
(2) Stewardship of the organization (Reinke, 2004, p. 33; Sendjaya and Sarros, 2003,
p. 61).
(3) Equity (or justice).
(4) Indebtedness (the rights of followers) including the right to: be needed and
involved, a covenantal relationship, to understand (the organization and its
goals and objectives), affect one’s own destiny, be held accountable for
performance, appeal decisions, and make a commitment to the organization.
(5) Self-understanding (or awareness): the creation of an ethical climate for others
by questioning the motives of organizational leaders and members.

One of the most crucial attributes of servant leaders is agape – an unconditional love of
others without regard for their due or desert. It is a love of behavior and choice, not a
romantic feeling. It is demonstrated by the servant leader through the following
attributes (Hunter, 1998, p. 100):
. Patience. Exercising self-control.
.
Kindness. Giving attention, appreciation and encouragement.
.
Humility. Authentic feelings without pretense or arrogance (Sendjaya and Sarros,
2003, p. 59).
.
Respectfulness. Treating others as important.
.
Selflessness. Meeting the needs of others.
 .
Forgiveness. Forgoing resentment when wronged. Emphasizing
.
Honesty. Freedom from resentment of others. the servant
.
Commitment. Sticking to your choices and honoring your agreements.

As a result, the servant leader sets aside their own wants and needs and seeks the
greatest good for others (see also Russell and Stone, 2002, p. 14; Spears, 2010, pp. 27-29)
Research results have confirmed the attributes of servant leadership in studies of 683
the workplace environment. Washington et al. (2006, p. 710) surveyed 288 followers
and 126 leaders to determine the presence and indicators of servant leadership. They
found leaders who were perceived by followers to value empathy, integrity and
competence, while reporting themselves as agreeable by followers were more likely to
be identified as practicing servant leadership by followers than those leaders who did
not exhibit these values and behaviors (see also Russell, 2001), Similarly, a survey by
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Joseph and Winston (2005) found a positive correlation between employee perceptions
of servant leadership and trust in leaders – providing support for the contention that
servant leadership elicits trust from followers (see also Reinke, 2004).
In sum, the servant leadership model presents an appealing alternative to those who
wish to distance themselves and their organizations from traditional models of
leadership and organizational structure.
Taking into account the limitations of the data set used in current analyses, the
sample characteristics and the sample size, results should be interpreted cautiously.
The sample used in this analysis is not a probability sample and cannot be considered
representative for the entire population of American police officers. Also, the police
manager respondents volunteered to attend this educational program. In addition, due
to the fact that this is only an exploratory analysis, the sample we used was relatively
small. In addition, the LBDQ may not be the most appropriate scale to assess levels of
servant leadership (see Page and Wong, 2000; Dennis and Winston, 2003; Dennis and
Bocarnea, 2005; Barbuto and Wheeler, 2006; Sendjaya, 2003; Liden et al., 2008;
Sendjaya et al., 2008), Future studies on this subject and population should take heed of
these limitations. However, due to the positive responses received from this sample
concerning the applicability of servant leadership in police organizations, justification
for further research on this subject is warranted.

Notes
1. The 12 subscales and their average range, mean values, and standard deviations as ranked
by this sample of police managers are presented in Table II. Table II also includes reliability
measures for each subscale forming the multidimensional index. The standardized reliability
coefficient alpha for the ideal leader behavior (ILB) scale is 0.8856 (n ¼ 126).
2. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. The responses
were anonymous and confidential. The questionnaire used in this investigation includes all
100 measures listed in the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire Form XII (LBDQ)
(Stogdill, 1963). The survey was administered as part of a class on leadership, however, it
was conducted at the very start of the class before any theories were studied and discussed.
3. Although this was a non-random availability sample, some of the demographic percentages
for police officers are similar to those reported in a national, random sample of US police
departments. The year 2000 report on Law Enforcement Management Statistics (LEMAS)
(Reaves and Hickman, 2004) found that most officers were male (89 percent), Caucasian (71
 PIJPSM percent) and were assigned to Patrol (59 percent), Although the LEMAS refers to all officers
in an agency and not just police managers, the percentages from both samples on these
34,4 demographic variables are similar enough for us to maintain our AOC/SPI availability
sample is roughly representative of the background of US law enforcement agencies.

References
684
Archambeault, W. and Weirman, C. (1983), “Critically assessing the utility of police
bureaucracies in the 1980s”, Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 11, pp. 420-9.
Baker, T.E. (2006), Effective Police Leadership: Moving beyond Management, Looseleaf Law
Publications, Flushing, NY.
Bales, R.F. (1950), Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Barbuto, J.E. and Wheeler, D.W. (2006), “Scale development and construct clarification of servant
leadership”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 300-26.
Boatwright, K.J. and Forrest, L. (2000), “Leadership preferences: the influence of gender and
needs for connection on workers’ ideal preferences for leadership behavior”, Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 18-34.
Bruns, G.H. and Shuman, I.G. (1988), “Police managers’ perception of organizational leadership
styles”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 145-57.
Dalai Lama and Muyzenberg, L. (2009), The Leader’s Way, Broadway Books, New York, NY.
Dennis, R. and Bocarnea, M. (2005), “Development of the servant leadership assessment
instrument”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 600-15.
Dennis, R. and Winston, B.E. (2003), “A factor analysis of Page and Wong’s servant leadership
instrument”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 455-9.
Densten, I.L. (2003), “Senior police leadership: does rank matter?”, Policing, Vol. 26, pp. 400-18.
Dobby, J., Anscombe, J. and Tuffin, R. (2004), Police Leadership: Expectations and Impact, Home
Office, London.
Eagly, A.H. and Johnson, B.T. (1990), “Gender and leadership style: a meta-analysis”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2, pp. 233-56.
Fischer, C. (2009), Leadership Matters: Police Chiefs Talk about Their Careers, Police Executive
Research Forum, Washington, DC.
Fleishman, E.A. (1953), “The description of supervisory behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37,
pp. 1-6.
Girodo, M. (1998), “Machiavellian, bureaucratic, and transformational leadership styles in police
managers: preliminary findings of interpersonal ethics”, Perceptual and Motor Skills,
Vol. 86, pp. 419-27.
Greenleaf, R.K. (1977), Servant Leadership, Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ.
Haberfeld, M.R. (2006), Police Leadership, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halpin, A.W. and Winer, R.E. (1957), “A factorial study of the leader behavior descriptions”,
in Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds), Leader Behavior: Its Description and Measurement,
Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, pp. 39-53.
Hemphill, J.K. and Coons, A.E. (1957), “Development of the leader behavior description
questionnaire”, in Stogdill, R.M. and Coons, A.E. (Eds), Leader Behavior: Its Description
and Measurement, Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH,
pp. 6-38.
 Hunter, J.C. (1998), The Servant, Crown Books, New York, NY. Emphasizing
Isenberg, J. (2010), Police Leadership in a Democracy: Conversations with America’s Police Chiefs, the servant
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Joseph, E.E. and Winston, B.E. (2005), “A correlation of servant leadership, leader trust, and
organizational trust”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 6-22.
Krimmel, J.T. and Lindemuth, P. (2001), “Police chief performance and leadership styles”, Police
685
Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 469-83.
Kuykendall, J. and Unsinger, P. (1982), “The leadership styles of police managers”, Journal of
Criminal Justice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 311-21.
Liden, R.C., Wayne, S.J., Zhao, H. and Henderson, D. (2008), “Servant leadership: development of
a multidimensional measure and multi-level assessment”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 161-77.

Mayo, L.A. (1985), “Leading blindly: an assessment of chiefs’ information about police
operations”, in Geller, W.A. (Ed.), Police Leadership in America, Praeger, New York, NY,
pp. 397-417.
Murphy, S.A. and Drodge, E.N. (2004), “The four I’s of police leadership: a case study heuristic”,
International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Nardi, P.M. (2006), Doing Survey Research: A Guide to Quantitative Methods, Allyn & Bacon,
Boston, MA.
Northouse, P.G. (2010), Leadership: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Page, D. and Wong, P.T.P. (2000), “A conceptual framework for measuring servant leadership”,
available at: www.twu.ca/academics/graduate/leadership/servant-leadership/conceptual-
framework.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
Reaves, B.A. and Hickman, M.J. (2004), Law Enforcement Management and Administrative
Statistics, 2000: Data for Individual State and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
Reinke, S. (2004), “Service before self: towards a theory of servant leadership”, Global Virtue
Ethics Review, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 30-57.
Rowe, M. (2006), “Following the leader: front-line narratives on police leadership”, Policing,
Vol. 29, pp. 757-67.
Russell, R.F. (2001), “The role of values in servant leadership”, Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 76-83.
Russell, R.F. and Stone, A.G. (2002), “A review of servant leadership attributes: developing a
practical model”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 145-57.
Sendjaya, S. (2003), “Development and validation of servant leadership behavior scale”, available
at: www.regent.edu/acad/sis/publications/conference_proceedings_servant_leadership_
roundtable/2003pdf/sendjaya_development_validation.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C.. and Santora, J.C. (2003), “Defining and measuring servant leadership
behaviour in organizations”, Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 45, pp. 402-24.
Sendjaya, S. and Sarros, J.C. (2008), “Servant leadership: its origin, development, and application
in organizations”, Journal of Leadership and Organization Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 57-64.
Spears, L.C. (2010), “Character and servant leadership: ten characteristics of effective, caring
leaders”, Journal of Virtues and Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 25-30.
 PIJPSM Stamper, N.H. (1992), Removing Managerial Barriers to Effective Police Leadership: A Study of
Executive Leadership and Executive Management in Big-city Police Departments, Police
34,4 Executive Research Forum, Washington, DC.
Stogdill, R.M. (1963), Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
Villiers, P. (2003), “Philosophy, doctrine and leadership: some core beliefs”, in Adlam, R. and
686 Villiers, P. (Eds), Police Leadership in the Twenty-first Century: Philosophy, Doctrine and
Developments, Waterside Press, Winchester, pp. 15-33.
Washington, R.R., Sutton, C.D. and Feild, H.S. (2006), “Individual differences in servant
leadership: the roles of values and personality”, Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 700-16.
Yukl, G. (2006), Leadership in Organizations, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)

Further reading
Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2003), “Defining and measuring servant leadership
behavior in organizations”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 402-24.
Spears, L.C. (2004), “Practicing servant leadership”, Leader to Leader, Vol. 34, pp. 7-11.
Stone, A.G., Russell, R.F. and Patterson, K. (2003), “Transformational versus servant leadership:
a difference in leader focus”, available at: www.regent.edu/acad/sis/publications/
conference_proceedings/servant_leadership_roundtable/2003pdf/stone_transformation_
versus.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).
Wong, P.T.P. and Page, D. (2003), “Servant leadership: an opponent-process model and the
revised servant leadership profile”, available at: www.regent.edu/sls/publications/
conference_proceedings/2003pdf/wong_servant_leadership.pdf (accessed 8 July 2010).

About the authors

Gennaro F. Vito is a Professor and Distinguished University Scholar in the Department of Justice
Administration at the University of Louisville, where he also holds a faculty appointment in the
Administrative Officer’s Course of the Southern Police Institute. He holds a PhD in Public
Administration from The Ohio State University. His research interests are concerned with
criminal justice policy analysis and program evaluation and police management. Gennaro F. Vito
is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: gf.vito@louisville.edu
Geetha Suresh is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Justice Administration at the
University of Louisville. She holds a PhD in Urban and Public Affairs from the University of
Louisville, Kentucky. Her research interests are concerned with crime mapping and crime
analysis.
George E. Richards is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and
Criminal Justice at Edinboro University of Pennsylvania. He received his PhD in Public
Administration from the University of Akron. His research interests are in crime prevention and
organizational behavior.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
 This article has been cited by:

1. Leading the Way Leadership Communication 337-362. [CrossRef]

2. Saracha Chatthong, Manaswas Kovitaya, Mingkwan Kongjaroen. 2014. The Elements of a Learning
Model to Enhance Service Mind of Thai Police Officer. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 152,
880-888. [CrossRef]
3. Adi Indrayanto, John Burgess, Kandy Dayaram, . 2014. A case study of transformational leadership and
para-police performance in Indonesia. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management
37:2, 373-388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. M. Pearson-Goff, V. Herrington. 2014. Police Leadership: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Policing
8, 14-26. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY At 22:10 11 March 2015 (PT)