1 Leadership - Education - For - Mid-L

Louisiana State University Shreveport
LSUS Digital Repository
LSUS Doctoral Dissertations College of Education and Human Development
May 2020
Leadership Education for Mid-level Law Enforcement Managers: The

Role of Effective Training on Transformational and Authentic
Leadership Traits
George Kevin Baxter, Roland Lee Grove, and James Royce Pitney
Find this and additional works at: https://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/lsus-

graddocs:collection
This Thesis is brought to you for free by Noel Memorial Library. It has been accepted for inclusion in this digital
collection by an authorized graduate school editor of LSUS’s Digital Repository. For more information please
contact: library_support@lsus.edu
General use of this material is limited by the rights of the author, however LSUS asserts prior claim on all materials
submitted for Master’s, Specialist, and Doctoral degrees to the extent that LSUS reserves a nonexclusive paid-up,
royalty free right to distribute copies of these materials, both internally and to third parties, by any appropriate
means.
Biographical references may be noted, but passages may not be copied unless the author has given permission.
Credit must be given in subsequent written or published work. A library which borrows this thesis, dissertation, or
material for use by its clientele is expected to make sure that the borrower is aware of these restrictions.
LEADERSHIP EDUCATION FOR MID-LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGERS:
THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING ON TRANSFORMATIONAL AND AUTHENTIC
LEADERSHIP TRAITS
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SHREVEPORT
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies
by
George Kevin Baxter
Ronald Lee Grove
James Royce Pitney
May 2020
ProQuest Number: 27836569
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
ProQuest 27836569
Published by ProQuest LLC ( 2020 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All Rights Reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
USE OF MANUSCRIPT THESES AND MATERIALS
Unpublished theses, dissertations, and materials submitted for the Master’s, Specialist, and
Doctoral Degrees and deposited in the Noel Memorial Library of Louisiana State University
Shreveport are available for inspection. Use of such material is limited by the rights of the
authors. Additionally, digital copies are available through ProQuest Theses and Dissertations and
the Louisiana Digital Library. While general use of such material is limited by the rights of the
authors, LSUS asserts prior claim on theses, dissertations, and materials submitted for Master’s,
Specialist, and Doctoral degrees to the extent that LSUS reserves a nonexclusive paid-up,
royalty-free right to distribute copies of these materials, both internally and to third parties, by
any appropriate means.
Bibliographical references may be noted, but passages may not be copied unless the author has
given permission. Videotapes may not be copied without specific permission. Credit must be
given in subsequent written or published work. A library which borrows this thesis, dissertation,
or material for use by its clientele is expected to make sure that the borrower is aware of these
restrictions.
NOEL MEMORIAL LIBRARY

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SHREVEPORT
(Students wishing to register their work for copyright purposes should contact the Copyright
Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20559).
LEADERSHIP EDUCATION FOR MID-LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGERS:
THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING ON TRANSFORMATIONAL AND
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP TRAITS
A Dissertation
by
George Kevin Baxter
Ronald Lee Grove
James Royce Pitney
Approved:
John Harrison, Ph.D. Date John Harrison, Ph.D. Date

Director, Leadership Studies Doctoral Program Chair, Dissertation Committee
Dennis Wissing, Ph.D. Date Ozlem Gumus, Ph.D. Date

Dean, College of Education & Human Methodologist, Dissertation Committee
Development
Sanjay Menon, Ph.D. Date Christopher Hale, Ph.D. Date

Dean, Graduate Studies Member, Dissertation Committee
DEDICATION
We must first recognize that we would never have arrived at this point without our Lord
and Savior, Jesus Christ. We dedicate this project and all the long hours after work over the
many weekends, holidays, and summer breaks during the past five-plus years climbing the
mountain, non-stop, to our spouses: Sarah, Karin, and Joy; and to our children: Will and
Adrianne; Nathan and Megan; Emma, Anna, and Alec.

BAXTER, GEORGE KEVIN
B.C.J., Louisiana State University Shreveport, 1997
M.S., Grambling State University, 2004
M.B.A., Centenary College of Louisiana, 2013
Doctor of Education, Louisiana State University Shreveport, Spring Commencement, 2020
GROVE, RONALD LEE

B.S., Wright State University, 1987
M.S., University of Dayton, 1993
M.A., Air University, 2002
PITNEY, JAMES ROYCE

B.A., University of North Dakota, 1998
M.A., Central Michigan University, 2006
Title of Project: LEADERSHIP EDUCATION FOR MID-LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT

MANAGERS: THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING ON
TRANSFORMATIONAL AND AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP TRAITS
Dissertation directed by John Harrison, Ph.D.
Pages in Dissertation: 108 Words in abstract: 203
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to determine if leadership training conducted by
Northwestern University’s School of Police Staff and Command (SPSC) is effective in
developing transformational and authentic leadership traits in mid-level law enforcement
managers. The evaluation involved controlling for rank, gender, military experience, age, and
highest education completed as covariates. Participants were lieutenants or captains currently
active in law enforcement agencies at varying levels of jurisdiction and from across the United
States. A one-way MANCOVA was conducted to assess whether a difference existed between
graduates of SPSC and non-attendees of SPSC. Graduates were divided into two groups
(Training-Upper and Training-Lower) based on their responses to the Kirkpatrick Hybrid
Evaluation Survey, which measures the participant’s perception of the leadership program’s
effectiveness. The quantitative study revealed that there was no statistically significant difference
v
between the groups on the combined dependent variables after controlling for the covariates,
F(8,280) = 1.488, p = .161, Wilks' Λ = .920, partial η2 = .041. The combined adjusted group
means were not statistically significantly different (p > .05), and the researchers failed to reject
the 12 null hypotheses in this study at the .05 level of significance.
Keywords: Training effectiveness, Transformational, Transactional, Passive/Avoidant,
Authentic, Law enforcement mid-level manager
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We must begin by thanking our committee chair, Dr. John Harrison, and our committee
members, Dr. Ozlem Gumus and Dr. Chris Hale, for their experience, wisdom, patience, and
encouragement in helping to make this study successful. We also want to express our great
gratitude to Colonel Mike Edmonson, retired superintendent of the Louisiana State Police, for
using his vast professional relationships to reach hundreds of the traditionally elusive population
of respondents. And finally, we extend our most sincere appreciation to Joan Breeding, Director
of Operations at the American Association of State Troopers, for expanding our reach to law
enforcement officials across the United States; to Caroline Andrew at Northwestern University
for the many phone calls and emails to ensure we were able to reach former students; to the
initial core of professors, Dr. Iris Johnson, Dr. Melissa Hawthorne, Dr. Michael Chikeleze, Dr.
Mary White, and Dr. Barzanna White, for providing a firm foundation to help us reach the
mountain top; and, without a doubt, we would not be here today if not for the friendship,
motivation, and family environment provided by our fellow members of Cohort Three.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xii
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xiii
Chapter
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
Justification of Study ............................................................................................. 2
Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 3
Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 4
Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 6
Research Questions ................................................................................................ 8
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 8
Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................ 11
Delimitations ........................................................................................................ 12
Assumptions ......................................................................................................... 12
Summary .............................................................................................................. 13
Organization of Study .......................................................................................... 13
2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 14
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14
Leadership Training Effectiveness ....................................................................... 15
Connections Between Training and Increased Knowledge ...................... 16
Failures of Competency-Based Leadership Training ............................... 16
Conflicting Opinions on the Value of Training ........................................ 17
viii
Recommendations for Effective Leadership Training .......................................... 18
The School of Police Staff and Command ............................................................ 20
Transformational Leadership ................................................................................ 21
Components of Transformational Leadership .......................................... 21
Leadership Development in Law Enforcement ........................................ 23
Transformational Leadership in Law Enforcement .................................. 24
Transactional Leadership ...................................................................................... 26
Components of Transactional Leadership ................................................ 26
Transactional Leadership in Law Enforcement ........................................ 27
Passive/Avoidant Leadership ................................................................................ 28
Components of Passive/Avoidant Leadership .......................................... 28
Management-by-Exception: Passive Leadership .......................... 28
Laissez-Faire Leadership .............................................................. 29
Implications of Passive/Avoidant Leadership Within Law Enforcement. 30
Authentic Leadership ............................................................................................ 31
Components of Authentic Leadership ...................................................... 31
Implications of Authentic Leadership in Law Enforcement ..................... 32
Summary ............................................................................................................... 33
3. Method .............................................................................................................................. 34
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 34
Research Design ................................................................................................... 34
Selection of Sample and Instrumentation ............................................................ 36
Law Enforcement Leader Demographics ................................................. 37
ix
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ...................................................... 37
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire......................................................... 38
Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey ..................................................... 39
Collection of Data ................................................................................................ 39
Treatment of Data ................................................................................................ 41
Summary ............................................................................................................... 41
4. Results and Discussion .................................................................................................... 43
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 43
Response Rate ...................................................................................................... 45
Demographic Data ................................................................................................ 46
Data Analysis ........................................................................................................ 48
Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 48
Assumptions for Data Analysis ............................................................... 50
Presentation of One-Way MANCOVA Results ...................................... 59
One-Way MANCOVA ................................................................. 59
Hypotheses Testing ....................................................................... 60
Summary ............................................................................................................... 61
5. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 63
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 63
Limitations ........................................................................................................... 63
Implications of Findings ....................................................................................... 64
Suggestions for Future Research ......................................................................... 67
Contributions and Conclusions ............................................................................ 68
x
References .................................................................................................................................... 70
Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 81
A – Law Enforcement Leader Demographics Survey ...................................................... 82
B – Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire ...................................................................... 83
C – Authentic Leadership Questionnaire ......................................................................... 84
D – Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey ..................................................................... 85
E – Informed Consent ...................................................................................................... 90
F – IRB Approval ............................................................................................................. 92
Biographical Sketch of Authors .................................................................................................... 93
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table ....................................................................................................................................... Page
1. Correlation Matrix of Covariates and Dependent Variables............................................. 53
2. Tests of Normality ............................................................................................................ 55
3. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects.................................................................................... 56
4. Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances .................................................................. 58
5. Box’s Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices ................................................................ 59
6. Descriptive Statistics ......................................................................................................... 60
7. Multivariate Tests ............................................................................................................. 61
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ......................................................................................................................................... Page
1. Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................ 8
2. Box Plot – Transactional Outliers ...................................................................................... 51
3. Box Plot – Passive/Avoidant Outliers................................................................................ 51
4. Box Plot – Authentic Outliers ............................................................................................ 52
xiii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Many organizations are concerned about the lack of adequate education and training that
their managers or managers-in-the-making are receiving (Collins & Holton, 2004; Powell &
Yalcin, 2010). American companies, along with federal, state, and local governments, spend
billions annually on management training and development (Gurdjian et al., 2014). For example,
in 2015 alone, approximately $160 billion was spent by United States organizations specifically
for leadership development (Beer et al., 2016). However, House and Aditya’s (1997) assessment
of the situation more than a decade earlier still rings true: there is little evidence that supports the
effectiveness of leadership training despite massive amounts of money and time spent on
management training by corporate and governmental agencies. Furthermore, considering the
one-dimensional, authoritarian managerial training that is typically delivered in a lecture format,
with little opportunity for dialogue, Myatt (2012) proclaimed that “leadership training is alive
and well, but it should have died long, long ago” (p. 1).
Such concerns are also reflected in public-sector organizations such as law enforcement
agencies (Cammock et al., 1995). Given the practical limitations of requiring a university degree
for police managers to move into executive ranks, universities and some governmental agencies
have created alternative means for educating law enforcement leaders (Jenkins & DeCario,
2014). For decades, federal, state, county, and municipal law enforcement agencies have
provided opportunities for police managers (i.e., officers in the ranks of sergeant, lieutenant,
captain, or higher) to attend leadership development training. At least 23 programs are known to
be offered by three different types of sponsors—government, professional leadership developers,
and institutions of higher learning (Jenkins and DeCario, 2014). These training sessions might
consist of several classes offered in a one-day seminar or more extended periods of up to 10
1
weeks of full-time study. Some of these training sessions are required for promotion while others
are voluntary.
One of the most commonly attended mid-level management training programs for police
in the United States is the School of Police Staff and Command (SPSC) taught at Northwestern
University in Evanston, Illinois (Flynn & Herrington, 2015; Jenkins & DeCario, 2014). This
management training program is designed to improve managerial effectiveness for law
enforcement agencies and to prepare mid-level managers for executive police positions (e.g.,
commander, chief, superintendent). However, the training costs to organizations and taxpaying
citizens require vast amounts of money as well as the valuable time of the attending personnel.
Taking into account the time and resources dedicated to such training and earlier concerns of
some researchers (e.g., Baron & Parent, 2014; House & Aditya, 1997; Myatt, 2012), questions
about the effectiveness of such training are a worthwhile consideration.
Justification of the Study
The Louisiana State Police pay approximately $40,000-$50,000 in salary, tuition,
housing, and meals for each state police lieutenant or captain who is sent to the 10-week
Northwestern University sponsored SPSC (Louisiana State Employees Travel Regulations, 2016-
2017; Louisiana State Police Commission, 2016; Northwestern University, n.d.). Law
enforcement organizations seeking leadership development for their mid-level managers may
choose this program or other similar programs. The SPSC lists enhancement of transformational
and authentic leadership as an element for development for the trainees (Nelson et al., 2006;
Nelson & Quick, 2017). However, whether such training has the desired effect of improving
transformational and authentic leadership once trainees return to their roles as mid-level
managers is questionable (Buerger, 1998; Flynn & Harrington, 2015). Because leadership
2
training is expensive, it ought to have positive outcomes, but the efficacy of this type of training
remains uncertain. In fact, our literature review identified no studies that evaluate the ability of
the SPSC to develop specific leadership styles or traits.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to determine the level of influence of training on the
ability of law enforcement mid-level managers to learn transformational and authentic leadership
traits. This study will also evaluate the leadership styles of course graduates compared to non-
course graduates. Four research questions influenced the development of this study:
RQ1. Does law enforcement managerial training presented by the SPSC have an effect
on transformational leadership traits as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ 5x-Short) after controlling for rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest
education completed?
on transactional leadership traits as measured by the MLQ 5x-Short after controlling for rank,
gender, military experience, age, and highest education completed?
on passive/avoidant leadership traits as measured by the MLQ 5x-Short after controlling for
rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education completed?
on authentic leadership traits as measured by the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ)
after controlling for rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education completed?
3
Significance of the Study
No studies, including those focused on training effectiveness, transformational leadership
theory, and authentic leadership traits relative to mid-level law enforcement managers, were
identified in the literature review. Additionally, no studies evaluating the effectiveness of the
SPSC were identified in the review of published literature. Comparing the high cost of leadership
training with the possible return on investment for managers and potential managers in
businesses, large organizations, and even in law enforcement has raised concerns for more than
two decades (Cammock et al., 1995; Collins & Holton, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Myatt,
2012; Powell & Yalcin, 2010). One of the organizations providing 10-week, full-time leadership
training for police managers across the United States is Northwestern University’s SPSC, which
claims to promote transformational and authentic leadership traits. The purpose of this research
is to evaluate the effectiveness of this nationally recognized police management school regarding
its mission of developing transformational and authentic leadership traits in mid-level law
enforcement managers.
A meta-analysis on training effectiveness for past research was conducted on the subject
from the years 1952 to 2002 (Powell & Yalcin, 2010). These authors compared training
programs by study design and across time periods, predominantly using data from Burke and
Day (1986) and Collins and Holton (2004). The 50-year analysis by Powell and Yalcin (2010)
suggests that as a whole managerial training programs have not been as effective as many would
have desired (p. 233). House and Aditya (1997) wrote that, even with the massive amounts of
money and time spent on management training by corporate and governmental agencies, there is
little evidence that supports the effectiveness of leadership training. Fiedler (1996) felt that very
little is known about managerial training as it relates to organizational performance because there
4
is a lack of adequate research. Several researchers referenced a meta-analysis conducted in the
mid-1980s that reviewed 70 different management training methods from business and industry
(Fiedler, 1996; House & Aditya, 1997; Powell & Yalcin, 2010). The meta-analysis discussed by
these researchers was conducted by Burke and Day (1986) and revealed that few of the methods
studied actually contributed to an increase in organizational performance and that managerial
training was overall only moderately effective (Burke & Day, 1986; Fiedler, 1996; House &
Aditya, 1997; Powell & Yalcin, 2010).
There are many reasons why some management training programs fall flat. For example,
researchers in the United Kingdom studied the failure of competency-based leadership training
and used a case study that focused on middle managers who, in essence, rejected a training
program, causing it to collapse (Boyett & Currie, 2001). Several reasons for management
rejection were discussed by Boyett and Currie (2001), such as the top-down way the
management training was forced on the managers and the managers’ beliefs that their related
fields and professional backgrounds were wholly disregarded during the training sessions. Many
organizations spend very little time evaluating leadership development (Collins & Holton, 2004).
Collins and Holton (2004) feel there are many complexities involved in being an accomplished
leader. Additional reasons for training failure, as described by Collins and Holton (2004), are due
to the full range of developmental experiences involved in leadership, such as mentoring,
exposure to senior management, formal training, and feedback, all of which result in
development inequalities. DeRue and Wellman (2009) wrote that many scholars believe that on-
the-job training is the best way to develop leaders; however, they argued that there are
diminishing returns on this type of training due to lack of feedback from senior managers. Some
researchers also believe that due to the many levels of most organizations, analysis of
5
effectiveness is complicated and that some organizations think that improving knowledge of the
trainee will automatically enhance efficiency within the organization (Collins & Holton, 2004;
Powell & Yalcin, 2010).
Although evaluation of leadership training is difficult and some programs fail, research
has shown that law enforcement leaders who have transformational leadership traits are more
effective when compared to transactional and passive/avoidant leaders (Flynn & Herrington,
2015; Girodo, 1998; Jenkins & DeCario, 2014; McCartney & Parent, 2015; Sarver, 2008;
Silvestri, 2007). In an assessment of leadership traits amongst team leaders and team members of
special operations law enforcement units, Arnatt and Beyerlein (2014) found team leaders to
have statistically higher scores in the relational transparency and moral/ethical components of
authentic leadership as measured by the ALQ. While the SPSC offers the opportunity to learn
leadership and management theory, this study provides an avenue to evaluate the displayed
transformational leadership traits of both mid-level management graduates of the SPSC and non-
attendees by using the MLQ 5x-Short. The ability to learn authentic leadership in a classroom
setting versus life experience is a matter of disagreement in published literature (Baron & Parent,
2014). This study will help fill the gap in knowledge by comparing ALQ scores of graduates and
non-attendees of the SPSC.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study draws from literature in three primary areas: (a)
managerial training effectiveness, (b) police leadership styles, and (c) training evaluation models.
Contemporary societal issues confronting North American law enforcement agencies make a
compelling case for leadership, yet Schafer (2010) wrote that “police leaders and leadership
remain understudied within existing criminal justice scholarship” (p. 644). When researching
6
managerial training effectiveness, Powell and Yalcin (2010) compared training programs by
study design and across time periods predominantly using data from Burke and Day (1986) and
Collins and Holton (2004). The 50-year analysis by Powell and Yalcin (2010) suggests that as a
whole managerial training programs have not been as effective as many would have desired (p.
233).
The framework for evaluating the effectiveness of a commonly attended police
management school consists of an analysis of the results from the MLQ 5x-Short and the ALQ.
Considering the SPSC lists transformational and authentic leadership traits as a component of the
curriculum, the MLQ 5x-Short and the ALQ will assess the leadership traits of each graduate.
The conceptual framework outlined below (Figure 1) portrays the relationship between
the independent variable, dependent variables, and controlling variables. The independent
variable consists of mid-level law enforcement managers who attended the SPSC and mid-level
managers that did not attend SPSC. Results from the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey were
used to divide SPSC attendees into an upper and lower group separated equally using their
median score. Dependent variables are derived from responses to the MLQ 5x-Short and ALQ in
regard to transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic leadership traits. Rank,
gender, military experience, age, and highest education level completed are the five controlling
variables. This framework allows for a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of in-residence
management training on typical mid-level law enforcement managers in the United States.
7
Figure 1
Proposed Conceptual Framework of Relationships among Independent and Dependent Variables
Note: MLQ = Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; ALQ = Authentic Leadership
Questionnaire; Upper Half and Lower Half come from results of the Kirkpatrick’s Hybrid
Evaluation Survey. Controlling variables in this study are rank, gender, military experience, age,
and highest education level completed.
Research Questions
Although definitive leadership training effectiveness in any organization may never be
known, this research seeks to determine if certain variables correlate with law enforcement
leadership training and the effectiveness of specified leadership education. Additionally, this
study will attempt to reveal if the graduates of the SPSC display the characteristics of
transformational and authentic leadership approaches as opposed to transactional or
passive/avoidant leadership styles. As a result, four research questions surfaced to guide the
investigation of related issues as proposed in this study:
8
on transformational leadership traits as measured by the MLQ 5x-Short after controlling for rank,
on authentic leadership traits as measured by the ALQ after controlling for rank, gender, military
experience, age, and highest education completed?
Hypotheses
Research has shown that the law enforcement leader who has transformational leadership
traits is more effective when compared to transactional and passive/avoidant leaders (Flynn &
Herrington, 2015; Girodo, 1998; Jenkins & DeCario, 2014; McCartney & Parent, 2015; Sarver,
2008; Silvestri, 2007). The SPSC is structured around the concept that transformational
leadership can be learned (Nelson et al., 2006). Additionally, the SPSC curriculum indicates that
all elements of authentic leadership have a positive outcome for police organizations
(Northwestern University, n.d.). These ideas, coupled with the most widely used and referenced
training evaluation model, Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation, inaugurate nine
hypotheses:
9
Research Question 1 – Hypotheses
H01: There will be no difference in transformational leadership traits between the group
of law enforcement managers who have graduated from SPSC with a mean of 7.52 or higher in
evaluations as measured by the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey (Training-Upper group)
and graduates from SPSC with a mean less than 7.52 (Training-Lower group).
H02: There will be no difference in transformational leadership traits between the
Training-Upper group and the Non-Attendee group.
Training-Lower group and the Non-Attendee group.
Research Question 2 - Hypotheses
H01: There will be no difference in transactional leadership traits between the Training-
Upper group and the Training-Lower group.
Upper group and the Non-Attendee group.
Lower group and the Non-Attendee group.
H01: There will be no difference in passive/avoidant leadership traits between the
Training-Upper group and the Training-Lower group.
10
H01: There will be no difference in authentic leadership traits between the Training-Upper
group and the Training-Lower group.
group and the Non-Attendee group.
H03: There will be no difference in authentic leadership traits between the Training-
Definitions of Terms
Mid-level police manager. Police employee who holds the rank of lieutenant or captain.
These managers typically supervise other supervisors, such as sergeants (Peak, 2015).
Transformational leader. A leader who maintains that leadership is influential in
motivating and transforming followers to be more aware of task outcomes, activates their highest
order needs, and goes beyond their self-interest for the benefit of the organization (Cossin &
Caballero, 2013).
Transactional leader. A leader who focuses on the role of supervision and group
performance, concentrates on specific tasks, and uses rewards and punishments to motivate
followers (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Passive/Avoidant leader. A leader who typically avoids making decisions, is absent when
needed, and hesitates in situations where acting is necessary (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Judge &
Piccolo, 2004).
Authentic leader. A leader who promotes a positive ethical climate, is true to one’s self,
and attempts to determine what is good for the leader, follower, and organization (Walumbwa et
al., 2008).
11
Delimitations
• Although there are numerous police management schools in the United States, only
one program was used.
• Only current, active duty, mid-level police managers could participate in the study.
• Only mid-level police managers in the United States could participate in the study.
• Training completion date was not collected in the demographics survey.
• Duration of the study was November 2019 – December 2019.
• Surveys were distributed electronically, resulting in replies from across the United
States.
Assumptions
It is assumed that the sample examined is representative of the population of law
enforcement mid-level managers in the United States. This assumption is determined considering
the questionnaires were distributed from a national law enforcement management training center
and a national state police association to reach a broad cross-section of mid-level managers.
It is assumed responses from the mid-level managers accurately reflected their
professional opinions. This assumption is made because mid-level managers are professionals in
their field of endeavor and understand the survey is being used for graduate studies by one of
their peers.
It is assumed that the participants are familiar with the management lexicon provided in
the questionnaires. This assumption is made because participants are police managers who have
completed either a nationally recognized law enforcement leadership course or have been
promoted from lower management to mid-level positions and are familiar with the terminology
that is commonly used or shared among the management community.
12
Summary
Professional development of law enforcement leaders is essential to enhancing public
service (Flynn & Harrington, 2015). How to achieve this development is a matter of debate.
Furthermore, the traditional bureaucratic and authoritarian styles of police leadership have been
called into question by contemporary societies (Densten, 2003). Two predominant avenues exist
to increase a mid-level manager’s professional and leadership skills. One method to build
leadership skills is on the job training and experience gained over time through job assignments
and day-to-day interaction with other officers, supervisors, and the public (DeRue & Wellman,
2009). A second technique involves formal training and education via a classroom experience.
This study looks to provide insight into whether or not professional development of leadership
skills is enhanced through mid-level manager attendance at the SPSC as compared to non-
attendance. While not a comprehensive review of multiple law enforcement managerial training
programs, this review can help inform the greater community by providing insight regarding this
particular course offering’s training effectiveness, its ability to develop various leadership styles,
and its return on investment.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 2 provides a literature review applicable to the variables of the research, namely,
training evaluation and the following leadership styles: transformational, transactional,
passive/avoidant, and authentic. Chapter 3 explains the methodology used to evaluate the
research questions, presenting a discussion of survey distribution, instrumentation, survey rigor,
and data collection. Chapter 4 presents the results and analysis of findings, and Chapter 5
summarizes and concludes the study. References and appendices make up the remainder of the
document.
13
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
Comparing the high cost of leadership training with the possible return on investment of
such training for managers and potential managers in businesses, large organizations, and even in
law enforcement has raised concerns for more than two decades (Cammock et al., 1995; Collins
& Holton, 2004; House & Aditya, 1997; Myatt, 2012; Powell & Yalcin, 2010). One in-residence
training organization that provides 10-week, full-time leadership training for police mid-level
managers is the Northwestern University SPSC, which claims to promote transformational and
authentic leadership among the key training elements (Nelson et al., 2006; Nelson & Quick,
2017). These researchers, during the literature review, found no studies evaluating the
effectiveness of the SPSC to develop transformational and authentic leadership traits. The
purpose of this research is to determine the role of effective training on the ability of law
enforcement mid-level managers to learn transformational and authentic leadership traits. This
study will also evaluate the leadership styles of course graduates compared to non-course
graduates.
This study is guided by four research questions that address the effectiveness of law
enforcement managerial training and the development of transformational and authentic
leadership as presented by one primary provider – the SPSC:
14
The information that follows in this chapter highlights the effectiveness in law
enforcement of leadership training, transformational leadership, transactional leadership,
passive/avoidant leadership, authentic leadership, and one nationally recognized leadership
training center for police.
Leadership Training Effectiveness
Powell and Yalcin (2010) conducted a meta-analysis on training effectiveness for past
research conducted on the subject from the years 1952 to 2002. These authors compared training
programs by study design and across time periods, predominantly using data from Burke and
Day (1986) and Collins and Holton (2004). The 50-year analysis by Powell and Yalcin suggests
that as a whole managerial training programs have not been as effective as many would have
desired (p. 233). House and Aditya (1997) wrote that, even with the immense amounts of money
and time spent on management training by corporate and governmental agencies, there is little
evidence that supports the effectiveness of leadership training. Fiedler (1996) felt that very little
is known about managerial training as it relates to organizational performance because there is a
15
lack of adequate research. Several researchers referenced a meta-analysis conducted in the mid-
1980s that reviewed 70 different management training methods from business and industry
(Fiedler, 1996; House & Aditya, 1997; Powell & Yalcin, 2010). The meta-analysis discussed by
these researchers was conducted by Burke and Day (1986) and revealed that few of the methods
studied actually contributed to an increase in organizational performance and that managerial
training was overall only moderately effective (Burke & Day, 1986; Fiedler, 1996; House &
Aditya, 1997; Powell & Yalcin, 2010).
Connections Between Training and Increased Knowledge
Burke and Day (1986) found that different training techniques do not necessarily translate
into increased knowledge. When discussing the importance of leadership development, Klein
and Ziegert (2004) wrote that there is surprisingly diminutive empirical research in the area of
manager development. In a meta-analysis of 83 studies over two decades that measured
managerial effectiveness, Collins and Holton (2004) found more positive results than the
previous Burke and Day (1986) meta-analysis. Collins and Holton (2004) looked beyond the
Burke and Day study and researched the effectiveness of training in the performance and the
knowledge at the individual, team, and organizational levels for the period 1982 to 2001. They
found that managerial training did produce better outcomes in the area of knowledge at all levels.
Powell and Yalcin (2010) pointed out that the Collins and Holton (2004) research included
studies from education, military, medical, and government fields, all of which were an addition
to the business and industry research that Burke and Day had examined.
Failures of Competency-Based Leadership Training
There are many reasons why some management training programs fall flat. For example,
researchers in the United Kingdom studied the failure of competency-based leadership training
16
and used a case study that focused on middle managers who, in essence, rejected a training
program causing it to collapse (Boyett & Currie, 2001). Several reasons for management
rejection were discussed by Boyett and Currie (2001), such as the top-down way the
management training was forced on the managers and the managers’ beliefs that their related
fields and professional backgrounds were wholly disregarded during the training sessions.
Additional reasons for training failure, as described by Collins and Holton (2004), are due to the
wide range of developmental experiences involved in leadership, such as mentoring, exposure to
senior management, formal training, and feedback, all of which result in development
inequalities. DeRue and Wellman (2009) wrote that many scholars believe that on-the-job
training is the best way to develop leaders; however, they argued that there are diminishing
returns on this type of training due to lack of feedback from senior managers. Another researcher
wrote that effectiveness might suffer if too much emphasis is placed on formal leadership
training compared to actual on-the-job learning (Giblin, 2017). Some researchers also believe
that due to the multi-level nature of most organizations, analysis of effectiveness is complicated
and that some leaders of organizations think that improving knowledge of the trainee will
automatically enhance efficiency within the organization (Collins & Holton, 2004; Powell &
Yalcin, 2010).
Conflicting Opinions on the Value of Training
Recently, various authors have offered different perspectives on the value of leadership
training. Orphanas and Orr (2014) discussed the importance of leadership training investment. A
study conducted by these authors focused on how leadership practices influenced teachers’ job
collaboration and satisfaction and suggested school performance is affected positively but
indirectly by the qualities of the school leadership. The study examined data from 175 U.S.
17
teachers whose leaders were trained in an exemplary leadership program and 589 teachers whose
leaders were trained traditionally. Their analysis indicated that the preparation of the leader has a
direct effect on the leadership methods but an indirect effect on the practices and satisfaction of
the teaching staff. However, when Aragon and Valle (2013) discussed the pay-off for managerial
training, they revealed how empirical evidence does not always support the hypothesis that the
investment of training leads to improved managerial effectiveness. Aragon and Valle (2013) also
point out that training is sometimes labeled as too expensive, not transferable to the workplace of
the manager, or used strictly as an awards mechanism for employees that the company wishes to
retain. Similarly, Barker (1997) asserted that the effectiveness of current managerial training is
uncertain “because even if the abilities, behavior, and characteristics of successful leaders could
be identified, people generally cannot assimilate them without changing their personalities and
world views” (p. 348). Scholarly researchers are not the only ones concerned with the lack of
validity for executive training programs but also policymakers, senior management, and
educators who are frustrated as well (Orphanos & Orr, 2014).
Recommendations for Effective Leadership Training
As noted previously, many reasons exist for what is believed to be flawed with current
leadership training and development; however, this research will also cite constructive and
substantiated recommendations for improvement. For example, Collins and Holton’s (2004)
meta-analysis determined that leaders in training can attain substantial improvements in skill and
knowledge, but only if the right development is presented to the right leaders. Furthermore,
Fiedler (1996) wrote that managerial development and leadership training should first focus on
selecting leaders with the required cognitive resources and experience to improve the
performance of the organization, and second, allow those individuals the leeway to make use of
18
those cognitive abilities for which they were initially retained. The use of enhanced follow-up on
those attending managerial training to assess the effectiveness of that training has been
recommended (Inman et al., 1982). Additionally, Inman et al. (1982) referenced a feedback
program used for manager participants at the Arizona State University Center for Executive
Development that included one particular questionnaire that was designed for continuous
feedback over a ten-year period.
Some scholars have suggested that managerial trainees have to be cognizant of more
effective ways to think and behave as a leader (Anderson, 2013). In addition, Anderson (2013)
further recommended that the trainee should be able to see visually what the training material
presented looks like in action, whether through a live demonstration, a video, or personal
reflection. Additionally, Anderson (2013) emphasized that the managerial trainees must have the
opportunity to practice any newly acquired skill in a low-risk environment. Barker (1997)
believed that leadership training should focus on the characteristics of individuals required to
handle the demanding role of a good leader. The development of a leader is more important than
training because development requires thoughtful insight (Barker, 1997). Furthermore, Barker
believed that proper development should have the goal of preparing the leader to deal with
incompatible colleagues and followers. Ghoshal (2005) recommended that corporate and public
sector managers get more involved by providing institutions of higher learning more
comprehensive input as to what is needed for managers to have success in their respective
industries or agencies.
Bregman (2013) asserted that influential leaders could be distinguished from mediocre
leaders, but that comparison cannot be made by sitting in a lecture, taking personality tests, or
reading literature. Bregman (2013) felt that leadership should be taught in a way that requires
19
integrating leadership development into the actual working environment. When discussing
leadership development, Kofodimos (2013) noted that for leadership training to work, the leader
trainee must have the desire to influence more effectively. Myatt (2012) felt strongly that
training and development should be considered separate entities, and this concept must be
understood before a leader can grow. Kofodimos (2013), specifically, made several
recommendations for implementing newly acquired leadership skills. Such recommendations
included role-playing in training to face any present fears and then trying out the new behaviors
once the trainee returns to the job and obtains coaching from superiors. Kofodimos (2013) also
contended that for sustainable change to occur resistance should be expected and embraced.
Myatt (2012), however, made three contrasts between training and development: (a) training
focuses on technique and curriculum, but development focuses on people; (b) training is
transactional, whereas development is transformational; and (c) training indoctrinates, but
development educates. In essence, current leadership training is the problem, but developing the
leader is the solution (Myatt, 2012, p. 2).
The School of Police Staff and Command
One of the most highly attended mid-level management training programs for police in
the United States is the SPSC taught at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois (Flynn &
Herrington, 2015; Jenkins & DeCario, 2014). This type of management training program is
designed to improve managerial effectiveness for law enforcement agencies and to prepare mid-
level managers moving up through the ranks to hold executive police positions, such as
commander, command inspector, deputy superintendent, chief, and superintendent.
According to Northwestern University Center for Public Safety, the SPSC is an
“intensive ten-week program that prepares law enforcement managers for senior positions by
20
uniquely combining academic principles with practical applications” (Northwestern University,
n.d.). Officer-students from around the country live on campus at Northwestern University for
the duration of the program, which is offered multiple times a year (Ramachandran, 2000).
Additionally, the program is hosted by local and state agencies across the United States at
various times during any given year. The school began in 1983 and is open to mid-level law
enforcement managers and focuses on effective management of people and programs,
understanding the activities of the executive's job, decision-making, problem-solving, budgeting,
organizational behavior, as well as developing skills in organizing, staffing and directing a law
enforcement agency (Northwestern University, n.d.; Ramachandran, 2000). Candidates for SPSC
must have a recommendation from their senior command. Graduates earn 21-semester credits in
undergraduate management coursework with the intended outcome of increased understanding in
global thinking, advanced leadership, and developing systems of accountability (Northwestern
University, n.d.; Ramachandran, 2000).
Transformational Leadership
Components of Transformational Leadership
The terms transformational and transactional leadership entered the leadership lexicon in
the late 1970s when James MacGregor Burns used the terminology to explain political leadership
styles (Northouse, 2013). In the following decade, Bernard M. Bass applied Burns’s concepts to
organizational management (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).
Transformational leadership is made up of four dimensions: idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Giblin, 2017,
p. 165). Transformational leadership has been defined as a “conception of leadership theory that
maintains leadership is influential in motivating and transforming followers to be more aware of
21
task outcomes, activate their highest order needs and to go beyond their self-interest for the
benefit of the organization” (Morreale, 2002, p. 18).
Antonakis and House (2002) described transformational behaviors as individualized
stimulation, inspirational motivation, and idealized influence, and they indicated that leaders able
to practice these behaviors usually gain extra effort from employees, experience higher employee
satisfaction, and see higher productivity, which results in overall higher organizational
efficiency. According to Judge and Piccolo (2004), transformational leadership dominated
thinking about leadership research at the time, and they indicated that a majority of concurrent
leadership studies concerned this explanation of leadership effectiveness. Bass (1995) and Judge
and Piccolo (2004) attempted to distinguish between transformational and transactional leaders.
Bass found that transformational leadership does not substitute for transactional leadership, but it
does add to the overall effectiveness of transactional leadership. A meta-analysis conducted by
Judge and Piccolo (2004) revealed that transformational and transactional leadership are so
substantially correlated that separating their distinctive effects is difficult. Bass (1995) argued
that the greatest leaders are both transformational and transactional and used Franklin D.
Roosevelt as an example of both.
According to Grant (2012), researchers have assumed that transformational leaders
influence employees’ job perceptions and performance through the words that they use.
However, Grant’s research indicates that transformational leaders can also achieve such
influence through objectively altering the design of employees’ jobs to create more significant
interaction with beneficiaries. In a critique of transformational leadership, Yukl (1999) argued
that although transformational leadership may suffer from a “heroic leadership” bias, the model
22
was positively related to follower satisfaction, motivation, performance, and was shown to be
useful in a variety of different situations.
Leadership Development in Law Enforcement
Jenkins and DeCario (2014) point out that executive-level law enforcement leaders rarely
attend additional education or training. Some researchers feel that since police executives have
great power to change a police agency, “raising the educational requirements for these positions
could benefit the profession” (Jenkins & DeCario, 2014, p. 2). However, training for police
managers already has a long history in the United States. For the past 50 years, management
training for law enforcement leaders has been a principal concern for police agencies (Giblin,
2017; Moriarty, 2009). For example, the FBI National Academy has been offering a professional
development program since 1935 (Giblin, 2017, p. 169). Unfortunately, such programs have
continued largely unchanged since their inception. Because law enforcement has changed
drastically in the past 20 years, management of those police agencies should now change as well
(Flynn & Herrington, 2015; Jenkins & DeCario, 2014). Flynn and Herrington (2015) provided
several examples of recent changes affecting law enforcement, such as new technologies, new
crimes, new communities, and new threats. Additionally, Jenkins and DeCario (2014) listed
community problem-solving initiatives and financial constraints as other considerations in the
landscape of policing.
Many would agree that law enforcement is an essential institution in any society that
wishes to maintain law and order and safeguard human life and property (Adebayo, 2004).
Contemporary societal issues confronting North American law enforcement agencies require
compelling leadership, yet Schafer (2010) wrote that “police leaders and leadership remain
understudied within existing criminal justice scholarship” (p. 644). Moriarty (2009) wrote that in
23
many law enforcement agencies, leadership development consisted only of the officer’s life
experiences or what was taught to them by more senior officers. They argued further that the
lack of formal leadership training had created difficulties for police executives to effectively
lead, manage, and develop their people. Krimmel and Lindenmuth (2001) conducted a study that
compared police chiefs who had received formal leadership training to those that had not. This
study was different from past police leadership effectiveness research in that it evaluated
leadership from a municipal managers’ point of view rather than a self-assessment conducted by
the chief. The research by Krimmel and Lindenmuth (2001) revealed that police chiefs who
possessed at least some college credits, were promoted from within the department as opposed to
outsiders, and those who had graduated from the FBI National Academy were rated significantly
higher on positive leadership indicators by the municipal manager. Some researchers believe
training programs, such as the FBI National Academy and Northwestern’s SPSC, are critical for
the development of future law enforcement leaders (Giblin, 2017, p. 169).
Transformational Leadership in Law Enforcement
Research has shown that the law enforcement leader who has transformational leadership
traits is more effective when compared to transactional and passive/avoidant leaders
(Flynn & Herrington, 2015; Girodo, 1998; Jenkins & DeCario, 2014; McCartney & Parent,
2015; Sarver, 2008; Silvestri, 2007). However, Pyle and Cangemi (2019) wrote that senior police
commanders often do not support transformational relationships between mid-level managers
and followers due to a lack of understanding of different leadership styles and fear of promoting
reckless behavior in rank-and-file personnel. Campbell and Kodz (2011) support the view that
law enforcement requires a different approach to leadership when compared to other professions
in the sense it requires a closer command and control or “leader as commander” given the
24
discretionary power granted to police officers (p. 21). However, to be effective in modern
society, law enforcement leaders should also cultivate participative and supportive styles,
competencies, and behaviors (Campbell & Kodz, 2011, p. 21). A study conducted by Girodo
(1998) on police leaders from across the globe had the goal of determining the level of
interpersonal influence leaders have over followers. The research categorized police leaders as
transformational, Machiavellian, or bureaucratic (Girodo, 1998). Krimmel and Lindenmuth
(2001) provided definitions for each style discussed by Girodo in the following way:
“Transformational leaders see themselves as being considerate, charismatic, and personable. The
bureaucratic leaders see themselves as being structured by rules. The Machiavellian leaders
reported themselves to possess manipulative personality traits with a means-end management
philosophy” (Krimmel & Lindenmuth, 2001, p. 471). Girodo (1998) felt police agencies reflect
authoritarian styles of management that parallel with bureaucratic or Machiavellian traits.
However, Girodo wrote that police officers often have to use their values and ethical frameworks
in discretionary decision-making, leading to a greater need for transformational leadership.
Comparatively, research conducted by Krimmel and Lindenmuth (2001) revealed that mid-level
supervisors have a desire to work in a participative environment but that law enforcement
organizations typically reject this form of leadership.
Some argued strongly that transformational leadership has been distinguished and
endorsed by many police organizations (Silvestri, 2007). However, despite this recognition,
Silvestri (2007) believed there was little evidence to suggest leadership styles are changing and
that current law enforcement managers use more of a transactional style of leadership than
transformational. Another scholar noted that transactional leadership might be valuable in stable
environments, but transformational leadership is “most effective in organizations where
25
leadership is necessary to meet the challenges in an ever-changing landscape” (Morreale, 2002,
p. 6). One particular police management school, Northwestern University’s SPSC, includes
transformational leadership as part of the curriculum (Nelson et al., 2006; Nelson & Quick,
2017). This same program also requires its students consisting of police managers from across
the country to read Kotter’s (1996) Leading Change to better understand how to effect change in
their professional environment (S. Camden, Deputy Director for the Center for Public Safety,
personal communication, September 23, 2016).
MacKie (2014) evaluated the effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching for
enhancing leadership development with an emphasis on transformational leadership. MacKie felt
it was necessary to research this topic after finding limited previous research related to coaching.
Additionally, the previous studies relied mainly on self-reported data. In his study, MacKie
(2014) used a 360-degree feedback method through the MLQ 5x-Short to investigate executive
coaching. The MLQ 5x-Short evaluates three different leadership styles: transformational,
transactional, and passive/avoidant (Bass & Avolio, 1989). The MLQ 5x-Short is the most
widely used instrument for assessing transformational and transactional leadership traits (Bono et
al., 2007; Hartog et al., 1997; Muenjohn & Armstrong, 2008; Tejeda et al., 2001).
Transactional Leadership
Components of Transactional Leadership
As previously described, the term transactional leadership entered into leadership
research in the late 1970s when James MacGregor Burns used the terminology to explain
political leadership styles (Northouse, 2013), and it was later applied to organizational
management by Bernard M. Bass (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987). Transactional leadership is said to
be coerced compliance (Schwarzwald et al., 2010) and is divided into two categories –
26
contingent reward and management-by-exception. Contingent reward involves an implicit or
explicit agreement between a leader and a follower on what must be done and a mutual
understanding that goal achievement will be rewarded (Vito et al., 2014). An example of this
type of transaction is a supervisor who allows an employee to leave work early if a project is
completed on time.
In contrast, management-by-exception is “leadership that involves corrective criticism,
negative feedback, and negative reinforcement” (Northouse, 2013, p. 195). This type of
leadership involves negative actions taken by the leader when the follower does not meet a
prescribed standard (Densten, 1999), and there are two forms: active and passive.
Active management-by-exception leaders closely monitor followers and point out
mistakes then take corrective action (Bono & Judge, 2004). Conversely, passive management-
by-exception leaders typically do not take any action until a problem becomes serious (Bono &
Judge, 2004), or as Avolio and Bass (2004) describe, they hold back, “waiting for mistakes to
occur before taking corrective action” (p. 3). An example of passive management-by-exception
is a manager delaying feedback until it is too late for an employee to make changes, such as
giving the employee a poor annual evaluation rating without prior communication about
performance.
Transactional Leadership in Law Enforcement
Historically, law enforcement leaders have been more transactional than transformational
when interacting with followers (Adebayo, 2004; Campbell & Kodz, 2011; Densten, 2003;
Silvestri, 2007; Singer & Singer, 1989). Transactional preferences can be attributed to the
“mechanistic” nature of police organizations, such as the hierarchical structure of rank and
status, centralized authority, rigid career paths, and stringent conformity to policy and procedures
27
(Singer & Singer, 1989, p. 388; Pyle & Cangemi, 2019). Some researchers believe that in certain
situations transactional behaviors can have positive outcomes, such as respect given to
supervisors adopting transactional tendencies when dealing with poor performance or when
assignments are unpredictable (Campbell & Kodz, 2011). Additionally, Campbell and Kodz
(2011) feel that those employees who are not self-motivated may appreciate transactional
leadership for the direction provided. The SPSC teaches students that transactional leaders “use
rewards and punishment to strike deals with followers and shape their behavior” (Nelson &
Quick, 2017).
Passive/Avoidant Leadership
Across the full-spectrum leadership model, Avolio and Bass (2004) discuss
transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership as traits measured by the Multi-
Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x-Short). When using the MLQ 5x-Short to evaluate
leadership characteristics, Avolio and Bass (2004) recommend grouping contingent reward and
management-by-exception: active within the assessment of a leader’s transactional leadership
skills. They also recommend grouping management-by-exception: passive results with laissez-
faire results to assess what they call passive/avoidant behavior (Avolio et al., 1999; Avolio &
Bass, 2004). This style of leadership consists of waiting for severe or chronic mistakes to be
made before taking action, avoiding personal involvement in decision-making, and generally
being absent in terms of interaction with subordinates (Avolio & Bass, 2004, p. 105).
Components of Passive/Avoidant Leadership
Management-by-Exception: Passive Leadership
Passive engagement by leaders is represented within the MLQ 5x-Short by measuring
management-by-exception: passive, and the MLQ 5x-Short defines the level of passivity
28
expected of a leader who completed the survey. Passive leaders often fail to define expectations
or quantify expected results (Avolio & Bass, 2004; Harold & Holtz, 2015). Failure to define
roles and responsibilities increases the potential for role ambiguity and confusion amongst
subordinates (Harold & Holtz, 2015; Skogstad et al., 2014). In addition, increases in passive
leadership correspond to increases in incivility (Harold & Holtz, 2015) and absenteeism
(Frooman et al., 2012). The increase in incivility manifests itself with Fortune 1000 companies
spending as much as 13% of their time, approximately seven weeks annually, addressing
concerns arising from incivility in the workplace (Porath & Pearson, 2013). Passive leadership
has been shown to both confuse subordinates and cost companies time and money due to its
ambiguity and lack of focus.
Laissez-Faire Leadership
Laissez-faire leadership principles are another example of failing to take a proactive
approach to leadership and problem solving (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). The presence of laissez-
faire leader styles, such as delaying decisions or being physically absent (Avolio & Bass, 2004)
in today’s working environment has shown to be a cause of increased stress on subordinates
(Skogstad et al., 2014). The addition of stress to the workplace equation from weak leaders also
drives down employee satisfaction and effectiveness (Frooman et al., 2012; Skogstad et al.,
2014), which affects employee efficiency and output for the company. As stress increases and
satisfaction declines, there is also an increase in the potential for bullying behavior due to the
lack of action from superiors (Glambeck et al., 2018). The lack of action exhibited by laissez-
faire leaders should not be confused with the empowerment of subordinates (Skogstad et al.,
2014) because empowering subordinates requires an active decision and set of overarching
strategies not present in the laissez-faire leader. The laissez-faire leader’s inability to be present
29
and deal with situations can be seen as tacit approval of the actions of the bully, thereby
increasing stress and driving morale down further (Glambeck et al., 2018). Increased stress,
lower effectiveness, and the potential for an environment fraught with bullies help explain why
laissez-faire leadership is often accompanied by one problem after another.
Implications of Passive/Avoidant Leadership Within Law Enforcement
The use of selected leadership styles within law enforcement organizations carries with it
repercussions and implications. The passive/avoidant leadership approach is a predictor of job
satisfaction and a mediating variable affecting absenteeism (Frooman et al., 2012) such that both
absenteeism and presenteeism increased as passive/avoidant styles were employed, which
increases the organization’s cost burden. In addition, as a leader pulls back from interaction with
subordinates, an increase in bullying and lower job satisfaction is possible (Glambek et al.,
2018). There is, however, an opportunity to learn from the mistakes of passive/avoidant
behavior.
Research within law enforcement has shown that positive leadership traits can influence
subordinate behavior for the better. For example, role modeling within policing has proven to
instill a sense of integrity and reduce all types of ill-treatment in the performance of duties by
subordinates (Huberts et al., 2007). Where role modeling is used, leaders are seen as the baseline
for setting standards of conduct. This is further proven by the work of Arnatt and Beyerlein
(2014) as they evaluated police special operations team leaders and team members. The team
leaders were found to have a statistically significant higher score in the areas of relational
transparency and moral/ethical conduct. If law enforcement leaders exhibit empathy combined
with motivating and inspiring leadership skills similar to the special operations team leaders,
then role modeling can then be an avenue to ensure passive/avoidant leaders are not the norm.
30
Conversely, without such empathy combined with motivating and inspiring leadership skills,
subordinates could see passive/avoidant traits as the norm and role model that behavior. While
the passive/avoidant style of leadership is not identified as productive during initial law
enforcement training programs, all subordinates must be on guard for its purposeful or accidental
use by superiors.
Authentic Leadership
Authentic leadership is the last of the leadership styles discussed in this paper. This style
of leadership is useful for socialized leaders who employ their power to empower others
(Hansbrough, 2012) and where the use of authentic leadership skills is sufficient to reach out to
subordinates for the benefit of both the organization and the individual. Essential elements of
authentic leadership that develop a connection with followers revolve around the constructs of
purpose, values, self-discipline, and heart (George, 2003). Through the use of authentic
principles, leaders can help develop meaning and a sense of connection in the workplace (Avolio
& Gardner, 2005). Throughout the development and validation of the ALQ, four components –
transparency, ethical/moral, balanced processing, and self-awareness – were identified to
quantify authentic leadership traits (Avolio et al., 2018; Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Components of Authentic Leadership
The four components of authentic leadership measured by the ALQ set the stage for
understanding leader behavior. First, the transparency component allows the leader to be seen as
consistent in both word and deed (Avolio & Gardner, 2005), thus allowing subordinates to know
ahead of time what to expect in interactions with the leader. Second, the ethical component
centers on the idea that authentic leadership is a moral construct (Avolio & Gardner, 2005),
which helps subordinates understand that their managers have a sense of caring for the members
31
of the workforce. Third, balanced processing allows authentic leaders to look for feedback and
interaction from subordinates that are both positive and negative in order to drive solutions to
issues (Avolio et al., 2018; Wong & Laschinger, 2012). Finally, self-awareness by the leader
involves recognizing their own strengths and weaknesses (Avolio et al., 2018). This awareness
prepares the leader to empower subordinates to take a more significant role in areas where the
leader is weaker, which can help the subordinate find increased meaning at work (Avolio &
Gardner, 2005). Taken as a whole, the four components of the ALQ have proven effective in
quantifying the authentic leadership traits of survey respondents (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Implications of Authentic Leadership for Law Enforcement
Law enforcement, by its very nature, is a dynamic, fast-paced environment. A review of
57 peer-reviewed journal articles (Pearson-Goff & Herrington, 2013) determined common
themes regarding activities and tasks necessary for police leaders. They found the five activities
of creating a vision, building organizational commitment, driving/managing change, and
problem-solving as necessary for police leaders. Additionally, leaders within law enforcement
need to display the seven characteristics of ethical behavior, trustworthiness, legitimacy, being a
role model, clear communication, decision making, and critical, creative strategic thinking
(Pearson-Goff & Herrington, 2013). When viewed as a whole, the activities and tasks above all
center around the concepts of group cohesion and identity. The ability of authentic leaders to
display the traditional authentic leadership traits of transparency, ethical behavior, balanced
processing, and self-awareness (Avolio et al., 2018; Walumbwa et al., 2008) sets the stage for
organizational growth. As the use of authentic leadership increases, both cohesion and group
identification also increase (Lopez et al., 2015; Walumbwa et al., 2008). This style of leadership
32
thus provides a foundation for more effectively-led law enforcement organizations and helps
individuals feel they are part of something bigger than just themselves (Sendjaya et al., 2016).
Summary
This chapter has covered multiple components of leadership and leadership theory to
include transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic. Furthermore, the role of
law enforcement management for each style of leadership was addressed. Although there is no
one right way to lead (Northouse, 2013), research has shown that transformational and authentic
leadership certainly have their place in all levels of leadership for all organizations, including the
police services.
33
CHAPTER 3: METHOD
Introduction
For more than two decades, researchers have raised concerns regarding the return on
investment of leadership training within the fields of business management, in large
organizations, and even in law enforcement, citing the high cost and questionable efficacy of the
training as cause for their concerns (Cammock & Dakin, 1995; Collins & Holton, 2004; House &
Aditya, 1997; Myatt, 2012; Powell & Yalcin, 2010). One of several institutions that provides a
10-week, full-time leadership training course for police mid-level managers from the United
States is Northwestern University’s SPSC (Flynn & Herrington, 2015; Jenkins & DeCario,
2014). They claim to promote both transformational and authentic leadership among their crucial
training elements.
This chapter discusses the methodology used to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of
a nationally known police management school and principally its claims for developing
transformational and authentic leadership traits within its graduates. This chapter highlights the
research design, identification of the sample selected to provide a generalization to the target
population for this study, instruments used to measure the targeted variables, and procedures
used in gathering and analyzing data.
Research Design
This research study employed a quantitative, quasi-experimental static group comparison
study to measure the dependent transformational and authentic leadership styles in both
graduates and non-graduates of the SPSC course. The nonequivalent groups consisted of
currently active, mid-level law enforcement managers throughout the United States, half of
whom had participated in and graduated from the Northwestern University SPSC course. The
34
nonequivalent control group had demographic characteristics similar to the graduates of
Northwestern University’s SPSC course but had not yet attended or graduated from the SPSC
course.
For purposes of this study, the independent variable was mid-level law enforcement
managers: half graduates and half non-attendees of the 10-week Northwestern University SPSC
course. This course is held several times per year around the United States, hosted at
Northwestern University as well as regionally by various law enforcement agencies, and is only
available to active, mid-level law enforcement managers with resource support (e.g., paid time
off work, travel pay, per diem costs) from their respective agencies. The dependent variables in
this study were leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant) as
measured by the MLQ 5x-Short, and authentic leadership traits as measured by the ALQ
determined from participant responses. The controlling variables came from demographic data
(rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education completed) from both the SPSC
graduate and SPSC non-attendee groups.
A significant limitation of the design for this study was its susceptibility to the internal
validity threat of selection differences. In the case of this research study, participants were either
assigned or not assigned to attend the SPSC course by their respective law enforcement agencies’
senior leadership. Such a non-random assignment prevented the researchers from controlling
those assigned to the SPSC graduate group, and those assigned to the SPSC non-attendee group.
Therefore, any preexisting differences between the participants have the potential to be the cause
of any observed differences in measured outcomes (Shadish et al., 2002). As such, with this
design, we can only demonstrate that any marked between-groups differences are an association
and not necessarily caused by the treatment of attending and graduating from SPSC.
35
Selection of Sample and Instrumentation
The target population for this study was mid-level law enforcement managers in the
United States. Peak (2015) defines mid-level law enforcement managers as police employees
who typically hold the rank of lieutenant or captain. A sample of 76 active, mid-level law
enforcement managers from across the United States who graduated from Northwestern
University’s Center for Public Safety’s SPSC was utilized for response inputs to this study; this
group was then subdivided again to make an upper level and lower level based on the mean of
their individual Kirkpatrick scores. Additionally, 75 active mid-level law enforcement managers
from across the United States who neither attended nor graduated from the SPSC course were
used to provide input to this study. This total sample of 151 law enforcement managers hail from
all across the United States and include multiple levels of police service, i.e., federal, state,
county, and municipal agencies.
The sampling procedures used in this study were the nonprobability method of
convenience sampling. This sampling technique was used because it allowed for a sample to be
selected based on the needs of the study. There were three main steps used to identify the data
collection process for the study. First, approval by the LSUS Institutional Review Board was
required due to the use of human subjects as participants. Second, using Mind Garden, Inc. and
Northwestern University’s Center for Public Safety Alumni Relations, a link containing the
instruments for measurement was sent to graduates of the SPSC course. Lastly, using Mind
Garden, Inc. and the snowball sampling method, a link containing the instruments for
measurement was sent to active, mid-level law enforcement non-attendees of SPSC through
professional contacts, as well as the American Association of State Troopers.
36
To collect appropriate data, a singular electronic survey link for SPSC graduates included
four survey measurements: a researcher-designed demographic survey, the MLQ 5x-Short, the
ALQ, and the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey. The SPSC non-attendees also utilized a
singular electronic survey without the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey, but with the same
researcher-designed demographic survey, the MLQ 5x-Short, and the ALQ.
Law Enforcement Leader Demographics
Study participants were asked to provide demographic information regarding their
personal history using a survey developed by the researchers. Current rank and position were
requested of each participant, as well as time spent in years of service as a law enforcement
lieutenant or captain. Gender and age were also part of the survey data collected. Military
experience, too, broken into years spent as either an enlisted member or as a commissioned
military officer, provided insight into possible previous levels of leadership while in the military.
Academic achievement was also requested in the form of the highest education level completed,
and education was broken into four categories: high school, bachelor’s, master’s, or doctorate.
This set of demographic data was used to allow group comparisons between SPSC graduates and
SPSC non-attendees.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
All participants in this study completed the MLQ 5x-Short Leader Form with nine-factor
individual assessment model. The MLQ 5x-Short measured leadership traits related to
transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership styles while Mind Garden, Inc.
managed distribution and access to the MLQ 5x-Short (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Leadership
styles are described as ordinal levels of measurement. Nine factors made up of four questions
account for 36 of the 45 items in the survey. The remaining nine questions are distributed across
37
the outcomes of leadership described as satisfaction (two items), effectiveness (four items), and
extra effort (three items). The factors and outcomes are measured using ratios. All questions
within the instrument asked the respondent to answer on a scale of 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently,
if not always) in terms of how often specific behaviors were exhibited. For the MLQ 5x-Short,
Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores between .60 and .76 were reported by Avolio and Bass (2004)
for the nine-factor model.
The MLQ 5x-Short used respondents’ answers to survey questions to quantify nine
factors for evaluation. Transformational leadership was assessed with the five factors of
idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individual consideration (Antonakis et al., 2003; Avolio & Bass, 2004). Transactional leadership
was assessed using the two factors of contingent reward and management-by-exception: active.
Passive/Avoidant characteristics were evaluated using the factors of management-by-exception:
passive and laissez-faire. The resulting values were used to compare SPSC graduates and SPSC
non-attendees.
Authentic Leadership Questionnaire
All study participants also completed the ALQ instrument. The ALQ measures leadership
behaviors related to the authentic leadership construct and is described by four components: self-
awareness, internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information, and relational
transparency (Avolio et al., 2018). Mind Garden, Inc. also manages distribution and access to the
ALQ survey (Avolio et al., 2018). Authentic leadership was evaluated using a 16-item, self-
rating instrument. All questions in the instrument asked the respondents to answer on a scale of 0
(not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always) in terms of how often specific behaviors were
exhibited. Within the ALQ instrument, the 16 questions are broken up into the four sets titled
38
transparency, ethical/moral, balanced processing, and self-awareness (Avolio et al., 2018).
Cronbach’s alpha reliability scores between .76 and .92 were also reported for the ALQ
instrument (Walumbwa et al., 2008).
Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey
Only graduates of SPSC completed the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey. The
Kirkpatrick survey is a measurement tool utilized to determine the effectiveness of training
courses and is the recognized leader of measuring training effectiveness; the four levels of
reaction, learning, behavior, and results are considered by many as the most influential
framework for evaluating training (Alliger et al., 1998; Bates, 2004). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016, p. 10) define the four levels as follows: reaction is the degree to which participants find
the training favorable, engaging and relevant to their jobs; learning is the degree to which
participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence and commitment based
on their participation in the training; behavior is the degree to which participants apply what they
learned during training when they are back on the job; and results are the degree to which
targeted outcomes occur as a result of the training and the support and accountability package.
These four levels made up the output and results of the survey instrument from SPSC graduate
participants. All questions within the instrument asked the respondents to answer on a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree).
Collection of Data
After the LSUS Institutional Review Board approved research with human subjects, the
researchers collected information from both SPSC graduates and non-attendees of SPSC. Study
participants provided information through a demographics survey, the MLQ 5x-Short, ALQ, and
the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey. Graduates of SPSC and non-attendees of SPSC
39
completed the appropriate instruments for their status through electronic survey links provided in
an email. The instruments used in this study evaluated the leadership traits and styles of SPSC
graduates and non-attendees alike. SPSC graduates assessed the effectiveness of the SPSC
course they had completed in the past. Respondents gained access to the survey instrument
questions through an electronic link hosted and made available by Mind Garden, Inc. since the
MLQ 5x-Short and ALQ surveys are owned and controlled by Mind Garden, Inc. Northwestern
University administers the SPSC course, and their alumni office maintains a list of graduates
from SPSC. The alumni office, then, agreed to forward the survey link to SPSC graduates so as
not to reveal any personal email addresses.
A snowball technique was used to forward the survey link to SPSC non-attendees
throughout the law enforcement community. An initial survey question, serving as a gatekeeper
question, asked participants to identify whether or not they had graduated from SPSC; this
gatekeeper question was then used to direct respondents to the appropriate set of surveys. Copies
of the demographic survey, the MLQ 5x-Short, the ALQ, and Kirkpatrick’s Hybrid Evaluation
Survey can be found in Appendices A, B, C, and D, respectively.
Finally, to increase interest in participation in this study, a financial incentive was
offered. The email providing the survey link to potential respondents identified an opportunity to
win one of 10 $50 gift cards if an email address was voluntarily given (to contact them in the
case of their random selection). The researchers utilized a digital random number generator to
choose 10 recipients for the gift cards (five from within each of the two groups) for those who
chose to leave their email as a means of contact.
40
Treatment of Data
Following data collection and the random drawing of the 10 participants for the $50 gift
cards, any identifying information was deleted from the data set. All of the 151 respondents were
coded for anonymity and organized into three levels. Based on their Kirkpatrick’s Hybrid
Evaluation Survey scores and using descriptive statistics and the median cumulative score of 218
(or, a mean of 7.52), the 76 SPSC graduates were then further subdivided into the upper-half and
lower-half levels. Thus, 38 SPSC graduates with cumulative scores of 218 or higher and 38
SPSC graduates with cumulative scores of 217 or lower made up the first two levels of the
independent variable. The 75 SPSC non-attendees, without any Kirkpatrick’s scores, made up
the third level of respondents as the independent variable.
The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for in-depth
data analysis and statistical testing. Specifically, the one-way multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was used to “determine whether there are any statistically significant differences
between the adjusted means of three or more independent (unrelated) groups, having controlled
for a continuous covariate” (Laerd Statistics, n.d.). In this study, we sought to determine whether
different leadership styles were statistically significantly different based on the two subgroups of
the first group of SPSC graduates, and the second group of non-attendees, while controlling for
rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education completed. The dominant
leadership style of all 151 participants was determined by scoring based on the MLQ 5x-Short
and ALQ scoring directions.
Summary
This chapter highlighted the various elements used in the methodology of this study,
including research design, identification of the sample selected to provide a generalization to the
41
target population of mid-level law enforcement managers, demographic information and
instrumentation used to measure the targeted variables, data collection procedures, and
descriptions of the statistical testing used to analyze the relevant data. The aim of this research
project’s methodology was to examine and determine Northwestern University’s SPSC’s
effectiveness as a police management school. Additionally, the project attempted to reveal
whether or not SPSC graduates display the characteristics of transformational and authentic
leadership approaches as opposed to transactional or passive/avoidant leadership styles when
compared to their non-attendee peers. Chapter 4 then follows-up with the specific results and
discussion regarding the interpretation of the study’s analysis.
42
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
The purpose of this quasi-experimental, static group comparison study was to measure
the transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic leadership traits in both
graduates and non-attendees of Northwestern University's SPSC course. To conduct this
comparison, two nonequivalent groups of active, mid-level law enforcement managers
throughout the United States were surveyed. One group consisted of graduates from SPSC. The
other group had never attended the SPSC course. Both groups had similar demographic
characteristics as mid-level law enforcement managers. All participants completed self-
assessment surveys designed to evaluate leadership traits.
This chapter discusses the results of self-reported data from both groups for four survey
instruments. Graduates of the SPSC course completed the MLQ 5x-Short, the ALQ, the
Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey, and a law enforcement leader demographics survey. The
non-attendee group completed the MLQ 5x-Short, the ALQ, and a law enforcement leader
demographics questionnaire. Descriptive information regarding the participants of the study and
analysis of data will also be presented in this chapter. The four research questions and their
hypotheses addressed in this study were –
H01: There will be no difference in transformational leadership traits between the group
of law enforcement managers who have graduated from SPSC with a mean of 7.52 or higher in
43
evaluations as measured by the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey (Training-Upper group)
and graduates from SPSC with a mean less than 7.52 (Training-Lower group).
Upper group and the Training-Lower group.
Upper group and the Non-Attendee group.
Training-Upper group and the Training-Lower group.
44
group and the Training-Lower group.
group and the Non-Attendee group.
H03: There will be no difference in authentic leadership traits between the Training-
Response Rate
This study investigated the leadership traits of mid-level law enforcement managers. The
total number of mid-level managers in the United States can vary daily as individuals move in
and out of that status. In 2018, there were 686,665 full-time law enforcement officers employed
across the United States (Duffin, 2019). The size of law enforcement agencies can range from
only a few police officers in a small town to tens of thousands in a large city, such as New York
City. The Louisiana State Police offers context regarding mid-level managers in that, for an
organization of 1,295 state troopers and investigators, there are 166 mid-level managers (G.
Beck, personal communication, February 24, 2020).
Distribution of the surveys for this study was accomplished electronically by the
American Association of State Troopers, Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety
Alumni Relations, as well as the snowball sampling technique using professional contacts. The
45
exact number of email recipients is unknown due to privacy concerns from the disseminating
organizations. All responses received were voluntarily submitted, and survey collection was
stopped when complete data was acquired for 76 graduates and 75 non-graduates for a total of
151 respondents (N = 151). These numbers provided both an initial assumption of a normal
distribution due to the collection of at least 30 responses for each level of participants as the
independent variable, and the proper ratio of responses necessary to conduct a one-way
MANCOVA statistical test.
Demographic Data
In all, this study used 151 respondents' data to understand its sample demographics
relative to rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education completed. A total of 83
(55%) respondents were lieutenants, and 68 (45%) were captains. Gender showed 137 male
respondents (90.7%) and 14 female respondents (9.3%). With regard to military experience, 37
participants (24.5%) did have military experience while 114 participants (75.5%) reported no
military experience. The age of respondents ranged from 31-64 years (M = 48.9 years, SD = 6.4
years). Furthermore, of the 151 participants, responses for highest education level attained
included 53 (35.1%) who had completed high school, 65 (43%) who had completed their
bachelor's degree, and 33 (21.9%) who had completed their master's degree; no respondent
reported having completed a doctoral degree. As the independent variable in this study,
participants were assigned to one of three levels: Training-Upper, Training-Lower, and Non-
Attendees.
Insight into the Training-Upper level of 38 respondents revealed that 17 (44.7%)
respondents were lieutenants, and 21 (55.3%) were captains. Gender results showed 35 male
respondents (92.1%) and three female respondents (7.9%). As to military experience, 11
46
participants (28.9%) did have military experience while 27 participants (71.1%) reported no
military experience. The age range of respondents was 39-61 years (M = 51.3 years, SD = 5.3
years). And finally, of the 38 group members, responses for highest education level attained
included 15 (39.5%) who had completed high school only, 12 (31.6%) who had completed their
bachelor's degree, and 11 (28.9%) who had earned their master's degree.
For the 38 participants assigned to the Training-Lower level, 20 (52.6%) respondents
were lieutenants, and 18 (47.4%) were captains. Gender responses showed 33 male respondents
(86.8%) and five female respondents (13.2%). Concerning military experience, six participants
(15.8%) did have military experience while 32 participants (84.2%) reported no military
experience. The age of these respondents ranged from 42-64 years (M = 50.7 years, SD = 5.5
years). Furthermore, of these 38 participants, responses for highest education level attained
included 13 (34.2%) who had completed high school, only 15 (39.5%) who had completed their
bachelor's degree, and 10 (26.3%) who had completed their master's degree.
Finally, demographic data specific to those in the third, Non-Attendee level, resulted in
46 (61.3%) respondents ranked as lieutenants and 29 (38.7%) ranked as captains. Gender showed
69 male respondents (92.0%) and six female respondents (8.0%). Concerning military
experience, 20 participants (26.7%) did have military experience while 55 participants (73.3%)
reported no military experience. The age of respondents ranged from 31-64 years (M = 46.8
years, SD = 6.6 years). And finally, of the 75 members assigned to this group, responses for
highest education level attained included 25 (33.3%) who had completed high school only, 38
(50.7%) who had completed their bachelor's degree, and 12 (16%) who had completed their
master's degree.
47
Data Analysis
This study's statistical analysis utilized version 26 of the IBM Corporation's SPSS
software. A one-way MANCOVA was used to determine that there was no statistically
significant difference between the three levels of the participants (independent variable) and the
transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic leadership traits (dependent
variables) while controlling for rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education
completed (covariates).
Instrumentation
Three instruments were used in this study to collect participant perspectives and
leadership traits. The Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey was administered to the SPSC
graduates. The MLQ 5x-Short was completed by both SPSC graduates and non-attendees. The
MLQ 5x-Short results offer insight into respondent leadership traits regarding transformational,
transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership. The ALQ was given to graduates and non-
attendees of SPSC to assess the authentic leadership traits of respondents. Each of the
instruments is commonly used in training and leadership studies research (Alliger et al., 1998;
Avolio & Bass, 2004; Avolio et al., 2018; Bates, 2004; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey is the most prominent survey instrument in
use today to evaluate training effectiveness (Alliger et al., 1998; Bates, 2004). The survey can be
tailored to meet the specific needs of researchers. This survey, included in Appendix D, used 29
questions with responses ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree. The four
levels of training measured by the survey are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. All 29
questions were summed for each participant, and the median score for overall responses was
7.52. This median allowed for including 38 respondents each in the two levels labeled Training-
48
Upper and Training-Lower. Leadership traits were assessed with the MLQ 5x-Short and ALQ
instruments.
All study participants completed the MLQ 5x-Short Leader Form (Avolio & Bass, 2004).
Sample questions from the MLQ 5x-Short are provided in Appendix B. This survey consists of
45 questions and offers insight to the respondent's inherent type of leadership in terms of
transformational, transactional, and passive/avoidant leadership traits. Responses to questions
range from 0 = not at all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently,
if not always. Transformational leadership is evaluated through questions associated with
idealized attributes, idealized behaviors, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individual consideration. Transactional leadership is assessed through contingent reward and
management-by-exception: active. Passive/avoidant leadership characteristics are reviewed
through the measures of management-by-exception: passive and laissez-faire. The ALQ survey
was used to assess the authentic leadership traits of participants.
All study participants completed the ALQ (Avolio et al., 2018) to evaluate their use of
the authentic leadership style. A sample of the instrument's questions is located in Appendix C.
The ALQ self-rating form consists of 16 questions. Responses to questions range from 0 = not at
all, 1 = once in a while, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = frequently, if not always. The
four components used to evaluate authentic leadership in the survey are transparency,
moral/ethical, balanced processing, and self-awareness. Each of the instruments discussed in this
chapter has proven reliable for academic research (Alliger et al., 1998; Avolio & Bass, 2004;
Avolio et al., 2018; Bates, 2004; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
49
Assumptions for Data Analysis
Given the research questions and data set, four initial assumptions were required to
validate the selection of the one-way MANCOVA as the correct statistical test relative to the
design of the study: (a) two or more continuous dependent variables; (b) independent variable is
categorical with two or more independent groups; (c) at least one continuous covariate; and
(d) independence of observations. All four of these assumptions were met. Before conducting the
one-way MANCOVA, researchers verified the following additional assumptions within SPSS:
• no missing data
• no significant univariate outliers in the groups of the independent variable in terms of
each dependent variable
• approximately normal distribution for each group of the independent variable
• linear relationship between the covariates and dependent variables within each group
of the independent variable
• homogeneity of variances and covariances
In order to test these additional assumptions, the researchers first evaluated the
descriptive statistics for missing data and outliers. While there was no missing data, visual
inspection of the box plots identified extreme univariate outliers in the transactional (Figure 2),
passive/avoidant (Figure 3), and authentic (Figure 4) dependent variables. Only the
transformational dependent variable did not have any outliers.
50
Figure 2
Box Plot of Mid-Level Law Enforcement Managers’ Transactional Leadership Scores
Highlighting the Three Outliers
Figure 3
Box Plot of Mid-Level Law Enforcement Managers’ Passive/avoidant Leadership Scores
Highlighting the Four Outliers
51
Figure 4
Box Plot of Mid-Level Law Enforcement Managers’ Authentic Leadership Scores Highlighting
the Two Outliers
For each case containing outliers, the respective mean was substituted for the specific data point.
As a result, all cases were able to be retained for further statistical analysis relative to the
transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic leadership dependent variables.
Next, to test for the assumption of multivariate normality, the researchers ran a linear
regression analysis to identify any possible case outliers that would adversely impact the full-
factorial MANCOVA. Cook’s distance was determined for each participant relative to each
dependent variable; all Cook’s distance values were less than one. The maximum Cook’s
distance for each dependent variable was as follows: transactional (.087), passive/avoidant
(.244), transformational (.053), and authentic (.084). As a result, the researchers determined the
participant responses were appropriate for inclusion in the study and would not adversely impact
52
the results. Therefore, the multivariate normality assumption was met, and no cases were
removed from this study.
A correlation matrix was then generated to determine relationships between the
covariates and the dependent variables (Table 1).
Table 1
Correlation Matrix of Covariates and Dependent Variables

Military Highest Trans- Passive/ Trans-
Rank Gender Experience Age Education actional Avoidant formational Authentic
Rank Pearson
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Gender Pearson -.014
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .865
N 151
Military Pearson -.072 .076
Experience Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .377 .354
N 151 151
Age Pearson .123 -.017 -.120
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .133 .836 .141
N 151 151 151
Highest Pearson .036 .026 -.081 -.035
Education Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .661 .749 .324 .670
N 151 151 151 151
Transactional Pearson .148 .044 -.134 .145 .076
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .070 .594 .102 .076 .355
N 151 151 151 151 151
Passive/ Pearson -.189* .003 -.006 -.006 -.029 -.046
Avoidant Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .020 .966 .937 .946 .725 .578
N 151 151 151 151 151 151
Transformational Pearson .172* .061 -.146 .017 .128 .457** -.244**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .034 .458 .073 .834 .117 .000 .003
N 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
Authentic Pearson .269** .018 -.166* .130 .087 .435** -.128 .595**
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .831 .042 .113 .289 .000 .116 .000
N 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
53
In reviewing the correlation matrix, there were significantly strong correlations between
some of the covariates and dependent variables. Rank was significantly positively correlated
with transformational and authentic. So, as rank increased, transformational and authentic
leadership scores increased. Rank was significantly negatively correlated with passive/avoidant.
So, as rank increased, passive/avoidant leadership scores decreased. Military experience was
significantly negatively correlated with authentic. Thus, a lack of military experience identified
by participants resulted in a decrease in authentic leadership scores. Additionally, the researchers
evaluated the correlation relationship between the dependent variables.
The four dependent variables of transactional, passive/avoidant, transformational, and
authentic leadership were assessed for correlational relationships using SPSS. A significantly
positive correlation existed between transactional and transformational. As transactional scores
increased, transformational scores were also observed to increase. A significantly negative
correlation was found between passive/avoidant and transformational. So, in general, as
passive/avoidant scores were noted to be higher, transformational scores appeared to be lower.
Transactional and transformational showed a significantly positive correlation with regard to
authentic; as transactional or transformational scores increased, authentic scores increased.
Following this review of the correlation matrix, the researchers tested for normality.
Initial tests of normality using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) Test, with α = .05,
showed statistically significant values (p < .05) for all dependent variables. However, subsequent
examination of the skewness and kurtosis values (within ± 1 and ± 3, respectively) revealed an
assumption of normality for all dependent variables (Table 2).
54
Table 2
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova
Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic df Sig. M SD
Statistic Statistic
Transactional .076 151 .032 .087 -.212 2.511 .4408
Passive/Avoidant .086 151 .008 .395 .048 .533 .3197
Transformational .082 151 .014 -.171 -.670 3.168 .4309
Authentic .117 151 .000 .104 -.806 3.232 .3640
Rank .366 151 .000 .202 -1.986 1.45 .499
Gender .532 151 .000 2.837 6.128 1.09 .291
Military Experience .470 151 .000 -1.198 -.574 1.75 .432
Age .086 151 .008 .016 .238 48.91 6.348
Highest Education .229 151 .000 .220 -1.166 1.87 .745
a
Lilliefors Significance Correction
Next, the data set was examined for both linearity and homogeneity of variance and
covariance. The assumption of linearity was assessed through the visual inspection of bivariate
scatterplots. Scatterplots revealed a generally linear relationship between the covariates and three
of the dependent variables (transactional, authentic, and transformational). The scatterplot of the
passive/avoidant dependent variable did not show a generally linear relationship. The overall
assumption of linearity was not violated.
Between-subjects effects of the covariates, independent variable, and dependent variables
were also examined (Table 3).
55
Table 3
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Type III Partial
Dependent Sum of Mean Eta
Source Variable Squares df Square F Sig. Squared
a
Corrected Model Transactional 3.941 17 .232 1.223 .255 .135
Passive/Avoidant 2.539b 17 .149 1.553 .086 .166
c
Transformational 4.684 17 .276 1.582 .077 .168
d
Authentic 3.309 17 .195 1.563 .083 .167
Intercept Transactional 5.757 1 5.757 30.381 .000 .186
Passive/Avoidant .790 1 .790 8.219 .005 .058
Transformational 10.092 1 10.092 57.947 .000 .303
Authentic 7.194 1 7.194 57.771 .000 .303
Level Transactional .087 2 .043 .229 .796 .003
Passive/Avoidant .042 2 .021 .221 .802 .003
Transformational .009 2 .005 .027 .973 .000
Authentic .162 2 .081 .651 .523 .010
Rank Transactional .299 1 .299 1.579 .211 .012
Transformational .453 1 .453 2.602 .109 .019
Authentic .961 1 .961 7.719 .006 .055
Gender Transactional .003 1 .003 .014 .908 .000
Authentic .288 1 .288 2.312 .131 .017
Military Transactional .578 1 .578 3.051 .083 .022
Experience Passive/Avoidant .085 1 .085 .883 .349 .007
Authentic .479 1 .479 3.847 .052 .028
Age Transactional .026 1 .026 .138 .710 .001
Authentic .096 1 .096 .773 .381 .006
Education Transactional .047 1 .047 .247 .620 .002
Authentic .027 1 .027 .219 .641 .002
56
Table 3
(continued)
Type III Partial
Dependent Sum of Mean Eta
Source Variable Squares df Square F Sig. Squared
Level * Rank Transactional .169 2 .085 .446 .641 .007
Authentic .105 2 .053 .423 .656 .006
Level * Gender Transactional .524 2 .262 1.383 .254 .020
Authentic .395 2 .198 1.588 .208 .023
Level * Military Transactional .433 2 .217 1.143 .322 .017
Experience Passive/Avoidant .048 2 .024 .251 .778 .004
Authentic .068 2 .034 .275 .760 .004
Level * Age Transactional .225 2 .112 .592 .554 .009
Authentic .163 2 .082 .656 .520 .010
Level * Education Transactional .281 2 .141 .742 .478 .011
Authentic .222 2 .111 .892 .412 .013
Error Transactional 25.204 133 .190
Passive/Avoidant 12.790 133 .096
Transformational 23.163 133 .174
Authentic 16.562 133 .125
Total Transactional 981.162 151
Passive/Avoidant 58.297 151
Transformational 1543.520 151
Authentic 1597.630 151
Corrected Total Transactional 29.144 150
Passive/Avoidant 15.329 150
Transformational 27.847 150
Authentic 19.871 150
57
The covariate rank was found to have a significant between-effects difference for both the
passive/avoidant and authentic leadership dependent variables. Additionally, the combination of
level and gender was observed to have a significant between-effects difference relative to the
passive/avoidant dependent variable.
Finally, prior to running the full-factorial one-way MANCOVA, the assumption of
homogeneity of variances of the four dependent variables was met (p > .05), as assessed by
Levene's test for equality of variances (Table 4). Homogeneity of variances and covariances was
also met, as assessed by Box's M test (p > .05) (Table 5).
Table 4
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa

F df1 df2 Sig.
Transactional 2.347 2 148 .099
Passive/Avoidant .992 2 148 .373
Transformational 2.615 2 148 .077
Authentic .497 2 148 .609
Note. Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.

a
Design: Intercept + Level + Rank + Gender + Military Experience
+ Age + Education + Level * Rank + Level * Gender + Level *
Military Experience + Level * Age + Level * Education
58
Table 5
Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matricesa

Box's M 23.986
F 1.146
df1 20
df2 44220.050
Sig. .292
Note. Tests the null hypothesis that the observed
covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal
across groups.
a
Design: Intercept + Level + Rank + Gender + Military
Experience + Age + Education + Level * Rank + Level *
Gender + Level * Military Experience + Level * Age +
Level * Education
Presentation of One-Way MANCOVA Results
One-Way MANCOVA
A full-factorial one-way MANCOVA was performed to determine the role of the
Training-Upper, Training-Lower, and Non-Attendees groups on the four sets of leadership traits
that relate to the transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic dependent
variables. Means between groups for the dependent variables were not very dissimilar (Table 6),
and the Training-Upper group showed a general trend to be higher in all leadership styles.
59
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
Level Mean Deviation N
Transactional Training-Upper 2.624 .3748 38
Training-Lower 2.550 .4797 38
Non-Attendee 2.434 .4418 75
Total 2.511 .4408 151
Passive/Avoidant Training-Upper .559 .3387 38
Training-Lower .522 .3712 38
Non-Attendee .526 .2836 75
Total .533 .3197 151
Transformational Training-Upper 3.337 .3723 38
Total 3.168 .4309 151
Authentic Training-Upper 3.316 .3553 38
Total 3.232 .3640 151
Hypotheses Testing
This portion of the data analysis presents the results of the hypothesis testing. The one-
way MANCOVA showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the
groups on the combined dependent variables after controlling for rank, gender, military
experience, age, and highest education completed, F(8,280) = 1.488, p = .161, Wilks' Λ = .920,
partial η2 = .041 (Table 7). The combined adjusted group means were not statistically
significantly different (p > .05). Therefore, we fail to reject all 12 of the null hypotheses in this
study at the .05 level of significance.
60
Table 7
Multivariate Testsa
Hypothesis Partial Eta
Effect Value F df Error df Sig. Squared
Intercept Wilks'  .527 31.463 b
4.000 140.000 .000 .473
Rank Wilks'  .898 3.982 b
4.000 140.000 .004 .102
Gender Wilks'  .976 .862b 4.000 140.000 .488 .024
Military
Wilks'  .969 1.123b 4.000 140.000 .348 .031
Experience
Age Wilks'  .968 1.173b 4.000 140.000 .326 .032
Education Wilks'  .987 .448 b
4.000 140.000 .774 .013
Level Wilks'  .920 1.488 b
8.000 280.000 .161 .041
a
Design: Intercept + Rank + Gender + Military Experience + Age + Education + Level
b
Exact statistic
Summary
This chapter evaluated mid-level law enforcement manager participants' responses to the
administered survey instruments. Information was collected concerning leadership traits and
mapped to the dependent variables named transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and
authentic. Control variables were evaluated, including rank, gender, military experience, age, and
highest education level attained. A one-way MANCOVA statistical analysis was utilized to
determine interactions among the variables.
It was hypothesized for research question one that there would be no difference in
transformational leadership traits between the Training-Upper group of law enforcement
managers and the Training-Lower group, that there would be no difference in transformational
leadership traits between the Training-Upper group and the Non-Attendee group, and that there
would be no difference in transformational leadership traits between the Training-Lower group
and the Non-Attendee group. Based on the results of the MANCOVA analysis described above,
the researchers failed to reject the null hypotheses as written.
61
For research question two, it was hypothesized that there would be no difference in
transactional leadership traits between the Training-Upper group and the Training-Lower group,
that there would be no difference in transactional leadership traits between the Training-Upper
group and the Non-Attendee group, and that there would be no difference in transactional
leadership traits between the Training-Lower group and the Non-Attendee group. Given the
MANCOVA analysis results described above, the researchers failed to reject the null hypotheses
as written.
Research question three hypothesized that there would be no difference in
passive/avoidant leadership traits between the Training-Upper group and the Training-Lower
group, that there would be no difference in passive/avoidant leadership traits between the
Training-Upper group and the Non-Attendee group, and that there would be no difference in
passive/avoidant leadership traits between the Training-Lower group and the Non-Attendee
group. The researchers failed to reject the null hypotheses as written due to the one-way
MANCOVA analysis results described above.
Finally, research question four hypothesized that there would be no difference in
authentic leadership traits between the Training-Upper group and the Training-Lower group, that
there would be no difference in authentic leadership traits between the Training-Upper group and
the Non-Attendee group, and that there would be no difference in authentic leadership traits
between the Training-Lower group and the Non-Attendee group. Given the results of the
MANCOVA analysis described above, the researchers failed to reject the null hypotheses as
written.
62
CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Introduction
The ability to acquire effective education and training for managers is a concern of
professional organizations in the current competitive environment (Collins & Holton, 2004;
Powell & Yalcin, 2010). Law enforcement agencies, in particular, are interested in effective
leadership development (Cammock et al., 1995). Given this desire for effective training, it is
interesting to examine whether or not current training programs result in increased leadership
skills or traits (Baron & Parent, 2014; Powell & Yalcin, 2010). Attendance at leadership training
courses results in missed time from work and expenditures for travel, course fees, and lodging.
As an example, the Louisiana State Police pay up to $50,000 in salary, tuition, housing, and
meals for each state police lieutenant or captain who is sent to the 10-week Northwestern
University SPSC program of instruction (Louisiana State Employees Travel Regulations, 2016-
2017; Louisiana State Police Commission, 2016; Northwestern University, n.d.). This study
provided insight into the training effectiveness of SPSC in order to assist in the formulation of a
more comprehensive understanding of the possible return on investment. Additionally, this
research study provided a better understanding of leadership traits exhibited by mid-level law
enforcement managers who are graduates of SPSC as compared to mid-level managers who have
not attended SPSC.
Limitations
Several limitations were present in this study. The first limitation is the difference in
participation rates by males and females. Of the 151 mid-level police managers participating in
the study, 137 were male while only 14 were female. Given the higher number of male law
enforcement officers in this profession at this time, a disparity of this type is not unexpected
63
(Batton & Wright, 2018). Secondly, the possibility exists that the participants who attended the
training were transformational or authentic before attending the leadership course, considering
they were selected or recommended by their superiors for SPSC. A third limitation of this study
was its susceptibility to the internal validity threat of selection differences due to participants’
being either assigned or not assigned to attend SPSC by their respective law enforcement
agencies’ senior leadership. This non-random assignment prevented the researchers from
controlling those assigned to the SPSC graduate group, and those assigned to the SPSC non-
attendee group. Therefore, any preexisting differences between the participants have the
potential to be the cause of any observed differences in measured outcomes (Shadish et al.,
2002). Finally, due to focusing the research on mid-level managers and the bureaucracy of police
agencies within which these managers operate, it may be that transformational leadership cannot
be realized until these managers promote to executive-level positions.
Implications of Findings
Active mid-level law enforcement managers that participated in this study were from
across the United States. Data collected included personal demographic information and
responses to the MLQ 5x-Short, ALQ, and training effectiveness assessments by means of the
Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey. Five demographic characteristics (rank, gender, military
experience, age, and highest education completed) were used as control variables. The
independent variable had three levels: Training-Upper, Training-Lower, and Non-Attendee. The
upper and lower groups were determined based on the median value of responses to the
Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey from 76 graduates of SPSC. The four dependent variables
were leadership trait scores as measured by the MLQ 5x-Short (transformational, transactional,
64
and passive/avoidant) and ALQ (Authentic) instruments. A one-way MANCOVA test was used
to evaluate the ability of training to impact leadership trait development in mid-level managers.
During the review of the data, the researchers noticed significant correlations between
some of the covariates and the dependent variables, as well as among the dependent variables. In
particular, rank had a negative correlation with passive/avoidant while rank had a positive
correlation with transformational and authentic leadership. This relationship between rank and
authentic leadership was also shown in a study of law enforcement special operations teams
where Arnatt and Beyerlein (2014) found that team leaders exhibited higher authentic leadership
scores than their subordinate team members. Military experience exhibited a negative correlation
with authentic. Transactional showed a positive correlation with transformational, which is
consistent with the findings of Judge and Piccolo (2004). Passive/avoidant showed a negative
correlation with transformational. Transactional and transformational were both positively
correlated with authentic. While these correlations were shown to exist, the final MANCOVA
results yielded a decision to fail to reject the null hypotheses.
The one-way MANCOVA showed that there was no statistically significant difference
between the groups on the combined dependent variables after controlling for rank, gender,
military experience, age, and highest education completed, F(8,280) = 1.488, p = .161, Wilks'
Λ = .920, partial η2 = .041. The combined adjusted group means were not statistically
significantly different (p > .05). Therefore, the researchers failed to reject all 12 of the null
hypotheses in this study at the .05 level of significance. Given the proposed null hypotheses
statements centered on there being no difference in leadership trait scores among Training-
Upper, Training-Lower, and Non-Attendees, we now have insight that training conducted by
65
SPSC may not produce a statistically significant difference in MLQ 5x-Short and ALQ scores for
participants. While not statistically significant, the data did present insightful information.
The leadership traits mean scores show differences and provide insight for Training-
Upper scores being higher than those of the Training-Lower, and Training-Lower scores being
higher than those of Non-Attendees. The only exception is the passive/avoidant mean scores,
where the Non-Attendees group is greater than those of the Training-Lower group. It is
important to note that the spread of scores in this area is minimal, and the difference is only .004.
While the scores are descending from Training-Upper to Training-Lower to Non-Attendees in
general, the differences are not significant enough to cause a rejection of the null hypotheses.
Although this information is useful, it is important to consider it within the overall objectives of
SPSC.
In addition, leadership development is only one part of the curriculum at SPSC. As noted
previously, SPSC addresses the development of transformational and authentic leadership skills
explicitly. While these styles are stressed, it is important to remember there is other specialized
instruction in the SPSC curriculum. In particular, employee relations, organizational behavior,
project management, decision making, contemporary policing, and resource allocation form the
foundation of instruction in addition to leadership and management (Northwestern University,
n.d.). It would be inappropriate to assert that mid-level law enforcement managers should not
attend SPSC because this study did not find a significant difference in leadership trait scores as
measured by the MLQ 5x-Short and ALQ. Intangibles associated with the specialized training at
SPSC make it a comprehensive program that offers insight into procedures and methods of
operation that are routinely seen in law enforcement (Nelson et al., 2006; Nelson & Quick,
2017). All of these factors should be viewed in context by executive-level law enforcement
66
decision-makers when choosing which mid-level law enforcement managers should attend
SPSC.
Suggestions for Future Research
Possible areas of future research regarding the effectiveness of law enforcement
leadership training and the implications of learned leadership traits are listed below:
• This study evaluated only one source of training, the SPSC offered through
Northwestern University. Expansion to other managerial course offerings, such as the
Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy, would allow researchers to
compare instruction styles and course content as it relates to leadership training
effectiveness by program.
• Participants in this study were not grouped by their level of jurisdiction of law
enforcement that they represent. A specific comparison between leadership traits at
the local, state, and federal jurisdiction levels would offer insight into whether or not
there are differences at each jurisdictional level of operation.
• Comparison of state police graduates of SPSC while grouping by the specific state
they represent may also offer insight into whether or not specific state organizational
culture impacts leadership within their organizations.
• This study only sampled 151 mid-level managers. Future research might include a
larger sample size to ensure a broader perspective relative to the population of mid-
level law enforcement managers.
• Additional research might include different leadership traits other than those
described in this study – for example, the role of servant leadership within law
enforcement.
67
• The methodology used in this study was that of posttest-only design with a static
group comparison. A pretest could be added to increase the rigor of internal validity.
• A study comparing SPSC graduates from different time periods may allow insight
into whether changes to course curriculum produce different results than those
collected in this study.
• Although the Kirkpatrick Hybrid Evaluation Survey was used in this study to create
different groups, the results of that instrument were not discussed. Future research
could use the data gathered from that instrument to show how attendees viewed the
effectiveness of training received at SPSC.
Contributions and Conclusions
This study offers leadership development insights not previously seen. No other studies
or analyses into the role of the effectiveness of Northwestern University’s SPSC to teach
transformational or authentic leadership theories were found. This research revealed there was no
statistically significant difference between SPSC graduates and non-attendees relative to the
leadership traits of transformational, transactional, passive/avoidant, and authentic leadership
styles after controlling for rank, gender, military experience, age, and highest education
completed.
Mid-level managers in law enforcement form the bridge between the entry-level law
enforcement specialist and the more senior executive-level leaders. When discussing middle
managers in law enforcement, Peak (2015) noted they are rarely mentioned in police
management literature but felt this was a mistake due to their role in the leadership process.
Leadership at the mid-level echelon sets the tone for implementing the executive-level vision and
goals. The 10-week SPSC course provides a consolidated focus on common policing issues and
68
leadership skill development. The evaluation of leadership traits in this study of mid-level law
enforcement managers from across the United States provided useful insight for executive-level
law enforcement decision makers.
The impact of this study can serve as a point of reference for the senior or executive law
enforcement leader when deciding which members of their organization should attend SPSC.
While transformational and authentic leadership skills development is part of the curriculum, this
analysis indicates that the difference in graduates versus non-attendees is not statistically
significant relative to these two leadership traits. While this study clearly indicates graduates
score higher than non-attendees in almost all of the areas evaluated in the MLQ 5x-Short and the
ALQ, it must be viewed in context with the fact that the researchers failed to reject all twelve
null hypotheses. Additional insight can be gained through the proposed areas of future study,
which can then provide a more comprehensive assessment when considered as part of an
integrated review of mid-level manager leadership. Curriculum development at SPSC could then
be considered in context relative to the needs of the law enforcement community by the course
organizers. Additionally, the law enforcement organizational leaders would have even greater
insight into expected traits and possible contributions to be exhibited by future graduates.
69
REFERENCES
Adebayo, D. O. (2004). Perceived workplace fairness, transformational leadership and
motivation in the Nigerian police: implications for change. International Journal of
Police Science & Management, 7(2), 110–122.
Alliger, G. M., Tannenbaum, S. I., Bennett, W., & Traver, H. (1998). A meta-analysis of the
relations among training criteria. Air Force Research Laboratory (Report No. AFRL-
HE-BR-TR-1998-0130). https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a368508.pdf
Anderson, E. (2013, June 21). Why leadership training doesn't work.Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikaandersen/2013/06/21/why-leadership-training-doesnt-
work/
Antonakis, J., & House, R. J. (2002). The full-range leadership theory: The way forward. In
B. J. Avolio, & F. J. Yammarino (Eds.). Transformational and charismatic leadership:
the road ahead (pp. 3-34). JAI Press.
Antonakis, J., Avolio, B. J., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (2003). Context and Leadership: An
examination of the nine full-range leadership theory using multifactor leadership
questionnaire. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261-295.
Aragon, I. B., & Valle, R. S. (2013). Does training managers pay off? The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 24(8), 1671-1684.
Arnatt, M. J., & Beyerlein, M. M. (2014). An empirical examination of special operations team
leaders' and members' leadership characteristics. Policing An International Journal of
Police Strategies and Management, 37(2), 438-453.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Third edition manual
and sampler set. Mind Garden, Inc.
70
Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72(2), 441-462.
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of
positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315-338.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2018). Authentic Leadership Questionnaire
(ALQ) Manual. Mind Garden, Inc.
Bass, B. M. (1995). Theory of transformational leadership redux. The Leadership Quarterly,
6(4), 463-479.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1989). Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes,
leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and
transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3),
509–527.
Barker, R. A. (1997, April). How can we train leaders if we do not know what leadership is?
Human Relations, 343-362.
Baron, L., & Parent, E. (2014, January). Developing authentic leadership within a training
context: Three phenomena supporting the individual development process. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 37-53.
Bates, R. (2004). A critical analysis of evaluation practice: The Kirkpatrick model and the
principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plan, 27, 341‑347.
71
Batton, C., & Wright, E. M. (2018). Patriarchy and the structure of employment in criminal
justice: Differences in the experiences of men and women working in the legal
profession, corrections, and law enforcement. Criminology and Criminal Justice Faculty
Publications, 53.
Beer, M., Magnus, F., & Schrader, D. (2016, October). Why leadership training fails – and what
to do about it. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/10/why-leadership-
training-fails-and-what-to-do-about-it
Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. (2007). Workplace emotions: The role of
supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1357-1367.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional
leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 901-910.
Boyett, I., & Currie, G. (2001). The failure of competence-based management education in the
public sector - A problem of generic transfer or implementation? Personnel Review,
30(1), 42-60.
Bregman, P. (2013, July 10). Why so many leadership programs ultimately fail. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/07/why-so-many-leadership-program/
Buerger, M. E. (1998). Police training as a Pentecost: Using tools singularly ill-suited to the
purpose of reform. Police Quarterly, 1(1), 27-63.
Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. (1986). A cumulative study of the effectiveness of managerial
training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 232-245.
72
Campbell, I., & Kodz, J. (2011). What makes great police leadership? What research can tell us
about the effectiveness of different leadership styles, competencies and behaviors?
National Policing Improvement Agency.
http://www.academia.edu/4875626/What_makes_great_police_leadership_Contents
Cammock, P., Nilakant, V., & Dakin, S. (1995). Developing a lay model of managerial
effectiveness: A social construction perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 32(4),
443-447.
Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004, Summer). The effectiveness of managerial leadership
development programs: A meta-analysis of studies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217-248.
Cossin, D., & Caballero, J. (2013). Transformational leadership: Background literature review.
IMD Global Board
Center.https://www.academia.edu/27629152/Transformational_Leadership
DeRue, D. S., & Wellman, N. (2009). Developing leaders via experience: The role of
developmental challenge, learning orientation, and feedback availability. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(4), 859-875.
Densten, I. L. (1999). Senior Australian law enforcement leadership. Policing: An International
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 22(1), 45-57.
Densten, I. L. (2003). Senior police leadership: Does rank matter? Policing: An International
Duffin, E. (2019, September 30). How many police officers are in the United States?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/191694/number-of-law-enforcement-officers-in-the-
us/
73
Fiedler, F. E. (1996, June). Research on leadership selection and training: One view of the future.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(2), 241-250.
Flynn, E., & Herrington, V. (2015). Toward a profession of police leadership (NCJ 248573).
New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice.
Frooman, J., Mendelson, M. B., & Murphy, J. K. (2012). Transformational and passive avoidant
leadership as determinants of absenteeism. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, 33(5), 447-463.
George, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: Rediscovering the secrets to creating lasting value.
Jossey-Bass.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75-91.
Giblin, M. (2017). Leadership and management in police organizations. Sage Publications, Inc.
Girodo, M. (1998). Machiavellian, bureaucratic, and transformational leadership styles in police
managers: Preliminary findings of interpersonal ethics. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86,
419-427.
Glambek, M., Skogstad, A., & Einarsen, S. (2018). Workplace bullying, the development of job
insecurity and the role of laissez-faire leadership: A two-wave moderated mediation
study. Work & Stress, 32(3), 297-312.
Gurdjian, P., Halbeisen, T., & Lane, K. (2014, January). Why leadership-development programs
fail. McKinsey Quarterly.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/leading_in_the_21st_century/why_leadership-
development_programs_fail
74
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the
performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal,
55(2), 458-476.
Hansbrough, T. K. (2012). The construction of a transformational leader: Follower attachment
and leadership perceptions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(6), 1533-1549.
Harold, C. M., & Holtz, B. C. (2015). The effects of passive leadership on workplace incivility.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36,16-38.
Hartog, D. N., Muijen, J. J., & Koopman, P. L. (1997). Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 70, 19–34.
House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The Social Scientific Study of Leadership: Quo Vadis?
Journal of Management, 23(3), 409-473.
Huberts, L. W. J. C., Kaptein, M., & Lasthuizen, K. (2007). A study of the impact of three
leadership styles on integrity violations committed by police officers. Policing: An
International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30(4), 587-607.
Inman, T. H., Olivas, L., & Robertson, F. (1982). An analysis of the effectiveness of a
management training program. Training and Development Journal, 80-86.
Jenkins, M. J., & DeCario, J. (2014, May). Educating police executives in a new community
problem-solving era. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/may/educating-police-executives-in-a-new-community-problem-
solving-era
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.
75
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Klein, K., & Ziegert, J. (2004). Leader development and change over time: A conceptual
integration and exploration of research challenges. In Day, D.V., Zaccaro, S.J. & Halpin,
S.M. (Eds), Leader development for transforming organizations (pp. 359-82). Lawrence
Erbaum Associates.
Kofodimos, J. (2013, November 22). Why leadership training doesn't work (and what you can do
about it). Telos Consulting. http://www.teleosconsulting.com/2013/11/why-leadership-
training-doesnt-work-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/
Krimmel, J., & Lindenmuth, P. (2001). Police chief performance and leadership styles. Police
Quarterly, 4(4), 469-483.
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A
constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 648-657.
Laerd Statistics. (n.d.). One-way MANCOVA. Retrieved January 31, 2020 from
https://statistics.laerd.com/spss-tutorials/one-way-mancova-using-spss-statistics.php
Lopez, C. G-G., Alonso, F. M., Morales, M. M., & Leon, J. A. M. (2015). Authentic leadership,
group cohesion and group identification in security and emergency teams. Piscothema,
27(1), 59-64.
Louisiana State Employees Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Pocket Guide to Travel Regulations.
http://www.doa.la.gov/pages/osp/Travel/Index.aspx
Louisiana State Police Commission (2016). State police pay grid.
http://laspc.dps.louisiana.gov/laspc.nsf/b713f7b7dd3871ee86257b9b004f9321/8c5cc7060
009ba7386257f4d0064f34e?OpenDocument
76
MacKie, D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full
range leadership development: A controlled study. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 66(2), 118-137.
McCartney, S., & Parent, R. (2015). Ethics in law enforcement. BCcampus. http://opentextbc.ca/
ethicsinlawenforcement/
Moriarty, S. E. (2009, May). The leadership in police organizations program in the Delaware
state police: Recommendations for law enforcement leadership development. Police
Chief Magazine.
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&artic
le_id=1792&issue_id=52009
Morreale, S. A. (2002). Transformational leadership in law enforcement. Association on
Employment Practices and Principles, 82.
Muenjohn, N., & Armstrong, A. (2008). Evaluating the structural validity of the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), capturing the leadership factors of transformational-
transactional leadership. Contemporary Management Research / CMR, 4(1), 3–14.
Myatt, M. (2012, December 19). The #1 reason leadership development fails. Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2012/12/19/the-1-reason-leadership-
development-fails/
Nelson, D. L., Mathis, R. L., Daft, R., Bennett, W. W., & Lewis. (2006). School of police staff
and command (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (2017). ORGB 5: Organizational behavior. Cengage Learning.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership theory and practice (6th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc.
77
Northwestern University (n.d.). School of Police Staff and Command.
https://registration.nucps.northwestern.edu/courseDisplay.cfmschID=631
Orphanos, S., & Orr, M. T. (2014). Learning leadership matters: The influence of innovative
school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 42(5), 680-700.
Peak, K. J. (2015). Policing America: Challenges and best practices (8th ed.). Pearson.
Pearson-Goff, & Herrington, V. (2013). Police leadership: A systematic review of the literature.
Policing, March, 1-13.
Porath, C. L., & Pearson, C. M. (2013). The price of incivility: Lack of respect hurts morale—
and the bottom line. Harvard Business Review, January–February, 115–121.
Powell, K. S., & Yalcin, S. (2010). Managerial training effectiveness: A meta-analysis 1952-
2002. Personnel Review, 39(2), 227–241.
Pyle, B. S., & Cangemi, J. (2019). Organizational change in law enforcement: Community-
oriented policing as transformational leadership. Organization Development Journal,
Winter, 81-88.
Ramachandran, H. (2000). Reference services to police officer students at the School of Police
Staff and Command, Traffic Institute, Northwestern University. Reference Librarian
(33)69/70, 247-258.
Sarver, M. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness: An examination of the leadership styles of
Texas police chiefs and the correlates of the most effective leaders [Doctoral dissertation,
Sam Houston State University]. ProQuest LLC.
78
Schafer, J. A. (2010). Effective leaders and leadership in policing: traits, assessment,
development, and expansion. Policing: An International Journal of Police Management
and Strategies, 33(4), 644–663.
Schwarzwald, J., Koslowsky, M., & Agassi, V. (2010). Captain's leadership type and police
officers' compliance to power bases. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 10(3), 273-290.
Sendjaya, S., Pekerti, A., Hartel, C., Hirst, G., & Butarbutar, I. (2016). Are authentic leaders
always moral? The role of Machiavellianism in the relationship between authentic
leadership and morality. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 125-139.
Shadish, W., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T., (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Cengage Learning.
Silvestri, M. (2007). Doing police leadership: Enter the new smart macho. Policing & Society,
17(1), 38–58.
Singer, M., & Singer, A. (1989). Situational constraints on transformational versus transactional
leadership behavior, subordinates’ leadership preference, and satisfaction. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 130(3), 385-396.
Skogstad, A., Hetland, J. Glaso, L., & Einarsen, S. (2014). Is avoidant leadership a root cause of
subordinate stress? Longitudinal relationships between laissez-faire leadership and role
ambiguity. Work & Stress, 28(4), 323-341.
Tejeda, M. J., Scandura, T. A., & Pillai, R. (2001). The MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties
and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(1), 31–52.
79
Vito, G. F., Higgins, G. E., & Denny, A. S. (2014). Transactional and transformational
leadership: An examination of the leadership challenge model. Policing: An International
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008).
Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of
Management, 34(1), 89-126.
Wong, C.A., & Laschinger, K.S. (2012). Authentic leadership, performance, and job satisfaction:
the mediating role of empowerment. Journal of Advanced Nursing, January, 947-959.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.
80
APPENDICES
81
APPENDIX A
LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADER DEMOGRAPHICS SURVEY
1. Current Rank:
2. Current Position:
3. Gender:
4. Military: Yes___ No___
a. Enlisted (number of years)
b. Commissioned (number of years)
5. Age:
6. Highest Education Completed (e.g., High School, Bachelors, Masters, or
Doctorate):
7. Time in years as a Lieutenant or Captain:
82
APPENDIX B
MULTIFACTOR LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
83
APPENDIX C
AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP QUESTIONNAIRE
84
APPENDIX D
KIRKPATRICK HYBRID EVALUATION SURVEY
85
KIRKPATRICK® HYBRID EVALUATION TOOL TEMPLATE
For Delayed Use After Training
DELAYED LEVEL 1: REACTION
Relevance
1. SPSC provided all of the information I need to be able to perform the skills
I learned successfully.
2. The information provided in SPSC is fully applicable to my job.
3. The timing of SPSC was appropriate for me.
Customer Satisfaction
4. I would recommend this SPSC to others with jobs similar to mine.
5. Attending SPSC was a good use of my time.
86
DELAYED LEVEL 2: LEARNING
Knowledge / Skill
6. I understand what resources are available to me on the job as I apply this
new knowledge.
7. I feel confident about applying what I learned on the job.
Attitude
8. It is clear why it was important for me to attend SPSC.
9. I believe SPSC’s content is important to succeeding on the job.
10. I believe it will be worthwhile to apply what I learned on the job.
87
LEVEL 3: BEHAVIOR
On-the-Job Behavior
11. I have successfully applied on the job what I learned in SPSC.
12. I have not been able to apply on the job what I learned in class.
Drivers
13. My supervisor and I set expectations for SPSC before the class.
14. My supervisor and I determined how I would apply what I learned after
SPSC.
15. I have received performance support in order to apply what I learned
successfully.
16. I receive support and encouragement for applying my learning to my job.
17. I have the necessary resources to apply what I learned successfully.
18. A system of accountability helps me to apply what I learned.
19. Incentives encourage me to apply what I learned.
88
PREDICTIVE LEVEL 4: RESULTS
Leading Indicators
20. I am already seeing positive results from SPSC.
21. I am expecting positive results from this initiative in the future.
Desired Results
22. SPSC training has positively impacted this organization.
23. SPSC training has positively impacted organizational leadership.
24. SPSC training has positively impacted mission accomplishment.
Instructions: Using this rating scale, enter the rating that best describes your
current level of on-the-job application for each listed behavior.
25. Think globally rather than remain task-oriented
26. Get things done with people
27. Develop systems of accountability
28. Analyze the environment
29. Deliver services effectively and efficiently
89
APPENDIX E
INFORMED CONSENT
Information about Being in a Research Study

Research Topic
Leadership Education for Law Enforcement Mid-Level Managers: The Mediating Role of
Effectiveness of Training on Transformational and Authentic Leadership Traits
Kevin Baxter, Ron Grove, and James Pitney are inviting you to take part in a research study.
Kevin, Ron, and James are doctoral candidates at Louisiana State University Shreveport in the
Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies program. Kevin is also a patrol lieutenant with the
Louisiana State Police.
Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research is to determine the level of mediating influence of effective training
on the ability for law enforcement managers to learn transformational and authentic leadership
traits as presented by the School of Police Staff and Command (SPSC). This study will also
evaluate the leadership styles of SPSC course graduates compared to non-course graduates.
For your part in the study, you will be asked to complete three short surveys that inquire about
your beliefs relating to leadership.
It will take you approximately 20 minutes to complete the surveys.
Risks and Discomforts
There will be minimal risks for participating, no more than that expected in daily life.
Possible Benefits
This research may benefit you and other managers as it will add to the field of leadership studies.
Incentives
To encourage maximum participation, the research team will randomly draw ten participants
who complete the surveys to receive one of ten $50 Visa cards.
Protection of Privacy and Confidentiality
The names and any other identifying information about participants will remain completely
confidential. Participants will be coded and tracked with a unique participant identification
90
number. Each participant has the option of providing their email address if they wish to be
considered for the random $50 Visa card drawing so that the research team has the ability to
contact them directly; for the research team to contact the winning persons, an email address will
be necessary.
Kevin, Ron, and James will not divulge, publish, or otherwise make known to any persons or the
public, any information obtained in the course of this research project that could identify the
participants in the study. A secure electronic database owned by Kevin Baxter will provide
confidential storage of any participants’ email addresses; Kevin will have sole access to the email
addresses of all participants that voluntarily disclose one. The database shall be purged three years
after the study has completed.
Choosing to Be in the Study
Participation is strictly voluntary; you do not have to participate in this study. You may choose to
take part, or you may choose to begin and then cease participation at any time.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, or if any problems arise, please contact
the researchers at:
Kevin Baxter Ron Grove James Pitney

318-464-0090 318-918-8772 318-529-9380
or
If you have any questions or concerns about your rights in this research study, please contact the
Doctoral Committee Chair at:
Dr. John D. Harrison

Department Chair, Leadership Studies
College of Education and Human Development
318-795-4279
Consent
Check this box if you affirm that you are at least 18 years old, have received a copy of this
consent form, understand the above information, and voluntarily agree to participate in this
research.
91
APPENDIX F
IRB APPROVAL
92
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF AUTHORS
George Kevin Baxter was born in Springhill, Louisiana, on January 23, 1967. He enlisted
in the Army National Guard in 1986 and later earned his commission through the U.S. Army
Officer Candidate School. Kevin spent 20 years in the military as a combat engineer and retired
in 2006 as a major. His duty positions included platoon leader, company commander, battalion
operations officer, battalion executive officer, and brigade communications officer. During his
time in the military, Kevin participated in Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom-
Afghanistan, Ulchi-Focus Lens - South Korea, and shorter tours of duty in Central America and
Germany.
In 1992, Kevin began his law enforcement career with the Bossier City Police
Department and obtained his POST certification from the Shreveport Police Academy. In 1995,
he started a new career with the Louisiana State Police (LSP). After he completed the Louisiana
State Police Academy, he was assigned to patrol at Troop G headquartered in Bossier City.
Kevin spent 25 years as a Louisiana State Trooper and retired in 2020 with the rank of lieutenant.
During his time with LSP, Kevin worked as a road trooper, public information officer, field
sergeant, desk sergeant, special teams sergeant, shift supervisor, executive officer, and interim
troop commander.
In 1991, Kevin graduated from Bossier Parish Community College with an Associate
Degree in Criminal Justice. In 1997, he graduated from Louisiana State University Shreveport
with a Bachelor of Criminal Justice. In 2004, Kevin completed his Master of Science in Criminal
Justice at Grambling State University. In 2013, he was awarded his MBA from Centenary
College of Louisiana. Kevin then earned his Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies from
Louisiana State University Shreveport in May of 2020.
93
Beginning in the Fall of 2020, Kevin will be a full-time assistant professor in the Doctor
of Education in Leadership Studies program at Louisiana State University Shreveport. His
hobbies include riding his Harley Davison, hunting white-tailed deer, and travel. He currently
lives in Stonewall, Louisiana.
Ronald Lee Grove was born on December 7, 1963, in Columbus, Ohio, and grew up as
the son of an active duty Air Force enlisted member. Ultimately earning a commission in the Air
Force, Ron served on active duty over twenty-five years and retired in 2013 as a colonel. His
active duty assignments included tours as a squadron commander, a member of the Air Force
Inspector General staff at The Pentagon, and as the lead advocate for missile defense capability
development at United States Strategic Command. Since retirement from active duty, he has
been a government civil servant working as an operations research analyst at Headquarters Air
Force Global Strike Command on Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, Louisiana.
Ron graduated from Wright State University in 1987 with a Bachelor of Science Degree
in Computer Engineering. In 1993 he was awarded a Master of Science Degree in Management
Science from the University of Dayton and in 2002 a Master of Arts Degree in Military
Operational Art and Science from Air University. He earned a Doctor of Education Degree in
Leadership Studies in May of 2020 from Louisiana State University Shreveport. His career goals
involve using his education to advance within the Air Force.
While baseball is his favorite sport, he also enjoys college basketball, reading, and
weightlifting. Ron is a member of the Phi Kappa Phi honor society and the Beta Theta Pi social
fraternity.
94
James Royce Pitney was born abroad on January 12, 1974, to an Air Force family. He
enlisted in the Air Force in 1994 and earned the Associate of Applied Science Degree from the
Community College of the Air Force in 1997 as well as the Bachelor of Arts Degree from the
University of North Dakota in 1998 while assigned to Grand Forks Air Force Base as an
intercontinental ballistic missile technician. After earning a commission through the Air Force
Officer Training School in 1999, James was assigned to Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota,
following his training as a missile launch officer in 2000. In 2004, he was assigned to
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, where he completed a Master of Arts Degree from
Central Michigan University in 2006. After being assigned to Barksdale Air Force Base,
Louisiana, in 2009, he retired from active duty in 2015 and earned a Doctor of Education Degree
from Louisiana State University Shreveport in May of 2020.
James currently resides in Bossier City, Louisiana, with his wife and three children, and
continues to work on Barksdale Air Force Base as an analyst for developmental test and
evaluation of intercontinental ballistic missile systems. His hobbies include reading, listening to
music, as well as playing bass guitar, piano, and drums. James is a member of the Honor Society
of Phi Kappa Phi, the National Association for Gifted Children, the Louisiana Sheriffs’
Association, and the Military Officers Association of America.
95

1 Leadership - Education - For - Mid-L

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Leadership - Education - For - Mid-L

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Louisiana State University Shreveport

LSUS Digital Repository

LSUS Doctoral Dissertations College of Education and Human Development

Leadership Education for Mid-level Law Enforcement Managers: The

Find this and additional works at: https://louisianadigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/lsus-

THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING ON TRANSFORMATIONAL AND AUTHENTIC

The Graduate Faculty

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SHREVEPORT

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education in Leadership Studies

George Kevin Baxter

Ronald Lee Grove

James Royce Pitney

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

All Rights Reserved.

NOEL MEMORIAL LIBRARY

THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE TRAINING ON TRANSFORMATIONAL AND

AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP TRAITS

George Kevin Baxter

Ronald Lee Grove

James Royce Pitney

John Harrison, Ph.D. Date John Harrison, Ph.D. Date

Dennis Wissing, Ph.D. Date Ozlem Gumus, Ph.D. Date

Sanjay Menon, Ph.D. Date Christopher Hale, Ph.D. Date

Adrianne; Nathan and Megan; Emma, Anna, and Alec.

GROVE, RONALD LEE

PITNEY, JAMES ROYCE

Title of Project: LEADERSHIP EDUCATION FOR MID-LEVEL LAW ENFORCEMENT

The purpose of this study was to determine if leadership training conducted by

Northwestern University’s School of Police Staff and Command (SPSC) is effective in

developing transformational and authentic leadership traits in mid-level law enforcement

highest education completed as covariates. Participants were lieutenants or captains currently

(Training-Upper and Training-Lower) based on their responses to the Kirkpatrick Hybrid

the 12 null hypotheses in this study at the .05 level of significance.

Keywords: Training effectiveness, Transformational, Transactional, Passive/Avoidant,

Authentic, Law enforcement mid-level manager

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xiii

Justification of Study ............................................................................................. 2

Purpose of the Study .............................................................................................. 3

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 4

Conceptual Framework .......................................................................................... 6

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 8

Definitions of Terms ............................................................................................ 11

Organization of Study .......................................................................................... 13

2. Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 14

Leadership Training Effectiveness ....................................................................... 15

Connections Between Training and Increased Knowledge ...................... 16

Failures of Competency-Based Leadership Training ............................... 16

Conflicting Opinions on the Value of Training ........................................ 17

The School of Police Staff and Command ............................................................ 20

Transformational Leadership ................................................................................ 21

Components of Transformational Leadership .......................................... 21

Leadership Development in Law Enforcement ........................................ 23

Transformational Leadership in Law Enforcement .................................. 24

Transactional Leadership ...................................................................................... 26

Components of Transactional Leadership ................................................ 26

Transactional Leadership in Law Enforcement ........................................ 27

Passive/Avoidant Leadership ................................................................................ 28

Components of Passive/Avoidant Leadership .......................................... 28

Management-by-Exception: Passive Leadership .......................... 28

Laissez-Faire Leadership .............................................................. 29