Leadership philosophy

Simon Harrey

Liberty University

Fundamentals of Public Safety Leadership (B01)

Professor Newell

Sep 29th, 2023

 Abstract

This paper examines leadership styles relevant to public safety. The identified leader is

James O'Neill, who served as Commissioner of the New York Police Department from 2016-

2019. O'Neill demonstrated a participative leadership style, emphasizing communication,

collaboration, and engaging frontline officers in decision-making. This style empowers teams,

builds trust, and garners buy-in for organizational change, providing value in the public safety

context. For my own leadership, I have selected a servant leadership approach focused on

supporting officers' professional growth and helping them reach their full potential. Unlike

authoritarian styles, servant leadership relies on interpersonal skills to build relationships and

influence rather than command and control. It aligns with my values of integrity, empathy, and

commitment to public service. Servant leadership complements other emerging styles like

transformational leadership that inspire innovation, and situational leadership that adapts to

different scenarios. Relevant biblical passages emphasize the importance of service, ethical

conduct, and community orientation for leaders. In the dynamic public safety environment, this

paper argues that flexible, empowering leadership styles like servant leadership enable

organizations to leverage officers' strengths while upholding moral standards. The paper provides

a framework for developing a thoughtful leadership philosophy grounded in both contemporary

leadership theory and biblical teachings.

 Leadership philosophy

Introduction

Leadership is a fluid concept. Most leaders adapt their approach over time based on experience

interacting with their teams and evolving situations. A leader's style refers to their typical

behaviors, methods, and characteristics when providing direction, motivation, and management

to their employees (Asbari et al., 2020). Many factors shape leadership style, including

personality, values, abilities, and background. Leadership style significantly influences how

effective a leader is at achieving goals. It determines how leaders develop strategy, implement

plans, respond to changes, manage expectations, and care for their team's wellbeing. Though

many leaders express a range of styles, most gravitate towards one predominant approach.

However, effective leaders learn to pivot their style depending on the circumstances. For

instance, a more authoritative style may work best in high-stakes emergency situations, while a

coaching approach could better suit day-to-day management (Wang et al., 2022). As leaders gain

experience, they ideally become more versatile in applying different styles suitable for different

contexts. Understanding one's own default leadership style is critically important for self-

awareness and improvement as a leader (Fries et al., 2021). It provides insight into how one's

typical behaviors affect direct reports. For example, an overly top-down style may limit

employee engagement and input. This knowledge also illuminates existing leadership strengths

to leverage and areas needing development (Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022). A leader focused on

team building may need to strengthen planning skills, for example. Ongoing assessment of one's

leadership style enables leaders to play to their strengths while expanding their versatility.
Identified Leader and Leadership Style

James O'Neill, the former Commissioner of the New York Police Department (NYPD), is

a seasoned law enforcement professional with a rich background in public safety. O'Neill

dedicated over three decades of his life to the NYPD, starting as a uniformed officer in the 1980s

and steadily ascending the ranks. His journey through the department provided him with a deep

understanding of the complexities and challenges faced by one of the largest police forces in the

world. As a New York City native, O'Neill had a unique connection to the city and its diverse

communities (Wang et al., 2022). This connection, along with his extensive experience and

commitment to public service, made him a respected figure both within the NYPD and among

the city's residents. O'Neill's leadership tenure coincided with a time when the NYPD was

dealing with issues related to community-police relations, crime reduction, and counter-terrorism

efforts. Under his leadership, O'Neill implemented several reforms aimed at strengthening

community trust, emphasizing transparency, and reducing crime rates (Levchak, 2021). His

participative leadership style was evident in his collaborative approach to problem-solving and

policy development, involving both officers and community members in shaping the NYPD's

strategies.

Description of James O'Neill's participative leadership style.

As Commissioner of the New York Police Department (NYPD) from 2016-2019, James

O’Neill demonstrated a highly participative leadership style. O’Neill frequently engaged the

input and collaboration of officers, embracing a decentralized, team-oriented approach to

managing the NYPD. Participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is centered

on collective decision-making with substantial involvement from team members (Wang et al.,

2022). It emphasizes empowerment, open communication, transparency, and consideration of

employees’ perspectives and insights. Several key behaviors characterize O’Neill’s participative

leadership style. O’Neill regularly consulted frontline officers directly through precinct visits,

field conversations, surveys, and focus groups (Asbari et al., 2020). Seeking direct feedback

from the rank-and-file reflects a participative approach rather than dictating policies in a top-

down fashion. Even on major initiatives like neighborhood policing, O’Neill collaborated

extensively with officers to understand localized needs and conditions (Fries et al., 2021).

Neighborhood policing decentralizes authority to frontline officers assigned to specific

geographic areas long-term. They are expected to collaboratively solve problems by building

relationships and trust within the neighborhoods (Levchak, 2021). The neighborhood policing

model thus depends on participative engagement from street-level officers.

O’Neill also involved officers in shaping training programs on constructive community

interactions, crisis intervention, de-escalation, and impartial policing. Participative leaders

believe training should be informed by insights from those undergoing the training to ensure

relevance (Levchak, 2021). O’Neill demonstrated this by incorporating officer feedback on

preferred training formats and key knowledge areas that would best equip them for the realities

of the job. Even though additional training created more work for officers, O’Neill’s participative

approach garnered greater buy-in. Transparent communication was another pillar of O’Neill’s

participative leadership. He frequently messaged the rationale behind major decisions to the

whole department to build understanding. For example, he explained the investigatory process

and objectives facts that led to firing Officer Pantaleo for the Eric Garner death (Asbari et al.,

2020). Participative leaders provide context and reasoning to gain support, rather than handing

down edicts. O’Neill also made himself accessible through direct outreach, maintaining an open

door for officer concerns. Finally, O’Neill collaborated with community groups and civil rights
advocates in policymaking (Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022). While these external groups are not

under NYPD command, participative leaders recognize the value of factoring in their

perspectives on policing issues that affect them (Wang et al., 2022). His willingness to partner

with critical voices reflected participative leadership in action.

How James O'Neill's participative leadership style provided value in public safety:

James O'Neill's participative leadership style offered significant benefits for managing the

complex public safety challenges facing the NYPD during his tenure as Commissioner from

2016-2019. Public safety organizations like law enforcement must earn the trust and cooperation

of the communities they serve in order to maximize effectiveness (Shahzad et al., 2021). Several

aspects of O'Neill's participative leadership approach inherently promoted the improved

community relations, accountability, and transparency needed to build greater public confidence

in policing (Asbari et al., 2020). First, O'Neill's emphasis on decentralization and frontline

empowerment facilitated stronger bonds between police and the neighborhoods they patrol. By

pushing decision-making authority to officers who are engaged directly with communities,

hyper-localized issues can be addressed in a tailored fashion based on firsthand understanding of

residents' specific concerns (Fries et al., 2021). The long-term continuity enabled by

neighborhood policing models allowed beat cops to develop deeper relationships and work

collaboratively with communities to find solutions (Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022). Rather than

standardized one-size-fits-all policies dictated from the top-down, O'Neill's participative style

allowed responsive solutions to emerge from those working closest with neighborhood

stakeholders.

Second, O'Neill cultivated robust consultation and engagement with officers, residents,

and community advocates which facilitated greater knowledge sharing from diverse sources.
Participative leadership recognizes that valuable insights can come from the ground up, not just

from top brass. Seeking regular input from street-level officers, community groups, and civil

rights leaders enabled more informed policies reflecting a much wider range of frontline

perspectives. This extensive stakeholder involvement also strengthened transparency into

decision-making processes. When people feel their voices are heard, it builds public

accountability and trust (Shahzad et al., 2021). O'Neill demonstrated a commitment to

transparent, organization-wide communication which provided helpful context and rationale

behind high profile decisions. For instance, thoroughly explaining the exhaustive investigatory

facts and legal constraints behind disciplinary actions like firing Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the

Eric Garner case demonstrated accountability in action (Alblooshi et al., 2021). It showed clearly

that oversight mechanisms were working properly to uphold standards, which ultimately

promotes public confidence in the system (Hai & Van, 2021). Likewise, clear messaging about

new training programs and community policing initiatives reduced misperceptions and

highlighted continuous improvement efforts.

In addition to these core tenets of participative leadership, Commissioner O'Neill

spearheaded several specific initiatives that created greater engagement and dialogue with NYPD

personnel and community members. For example, he oversaw the neighborhood policing

program which embedded officers long-term in neighborhoods to facilitate relationship building

(Levchak, 2021). He also expanded the Clergy Liaison Program which partners’ faith leaders

with local precincts to share community concerns. Importantly, O'Neill ramped up recruitment

from minority communities to diversify the department and reflect served populations. These

efforts demonstrate applying participative leadership through concrete engagement channels

beyond merely abstract philosophy. While O'Neill's participative leadership approach had
significant positives, the style also posed some implementation challenges. Empowering lower

level personnel requires effective transparency, accountability, and communications systems to

avoid inconsistencies (Wang et al., 2022). Likewise, some officers’ resistant to community

collaboration needed ongoing coaching to fully adopt the participative mindset. Additionally,

bringing community advocates into policy consultations risks dissent and politically

controversial demands (Hai & Van, 2021). However, O'Neill maintained focus on the long-term

relationship building benefits overall.

Personal Leadership Style

If I were in a public safety leadership role myself, I would adopt a servant leadership

style as the optimal approach. Servant leadership emphasizes serving others, ethical behavior,

developing employees, and having a community focus. The principles of servant leadership

strongly align with my personal values and the goals of public safety organizations.

Several traits make servant leadership well-suited for leading police departments,

emergency response units, and other public service teams. First, it prioritizes the needs of

followers, empowering them to grow professionally and personally (Wang et al., 2022).

Nurturing employees helps sustain a high-quality workforce to maintain strong public safety over

the long-term. Second, servant leaders act as role models of integrity and morality. Public trust

hinges on consistently ethical conduct, so emphasizing these values helps counter public

skepticism (Walls, 2019). Third, servant leadership stresses community orientation and building

relationships. This facilitates collaborating with residents to understand risks and co-create

solutions. On a personal level, the emphasis on ethics strongly resonates with my principles. I

believe leadership, especially in public institutions, carries a moral duty to society (Asbari et al.,

2020). Servant leadership provides a framework to put ethical behavior at the forefront. Its
concentration on humility also fits my values, as I think leaders should acknowledge limitations

and not let ego override objectivity. Additionally, I have strong interpersonal skills that suit

servant leadership's participative, collaborative style. My tendency for self-reflection helps

maintain self-awareness, another key trait of servant leaders.

Beyond personal alignment, I think servant leadership provides many advantages for

managing public safety teams. First, its focus on employee growth and support fosters

motivation. Workers who feel valued and invested in tend to have higher morale, job satisfaction,

and commitment to the organization's mission (Walls, 2019). Higher employee engagement

results in better performance. Second, the emphasis on ethics promotes public trust and counters

perceptions of corruption. Community members need confidence that public safety officials will

act with integrity. Servant leadership aims to reinforce ethical standards at all levels (Asbari et

al., 2020). Moreover, servant leadership facilitates community relationship building through

dialogue and responding to concerns. Public safety requires collaborating with residents as

partners, not policing them authoritatively. Servant leaders' community orientation builds needed

cooperation. Fourth, decentralized decision-making empowers frontline workers with local

knowledge to address issues creatively (Alblooshi et al., 2021). This flexibility and autonomy

helps them find customized solutions. Finally, servant leadership offers tools to provide caring

support and work-life balance (Northouse, 2021). Managing trauma and stress are occupational

challenges in public safety, and promoting wellness leads to healthier workforces.

Comparison to Other Styles

While servant leadership is my preferred approach, it is beneficial to overview and

compare other major leadership styles I could employ in a public safety role. Situational,

transformational, and authentic leadership represent distinct alternatives, each with potential
advantages and disadvantages relative to servant leadership. Examining these diverse styles

provides a more well-rounded perspective on effective, ethical leadership.

Situational Leadership Overview

Situational leadership, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, focuses on

adapting one’s leadership approach based on the needs and developmental level of followers

(Northouse, 2021). It classifies leadership behaviors into telling, selling, participating, and

delegating. These reflect different degrees of directive and supportive behaviors. In telling, the

leader provides high direction with low support. Selling adds more encouragement while still

being directive. Participating shifts to low direction and high support (Hai & Van, 2021).

Delegating minimizes involvement as followers become more self-reliant. According to

situational leadership, the leader must accurately diagnose the follower’s competence and

commitment in a specific situation, then adapt their style to match (Alblooshi et al., 2021). It

argues no single approach works universally. Situational leadership requires flexibility to

determine what each circumstance demands (Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022). For newer

employees needing more oversight, a telling approach provides clarity. But for experienced team

members needing support, a participating style suits better. Diagnosing needs and the

willingness/readiness of followers is a core situational leadership capability.

While both are flexible approaches, situational leadership differs from servant leadership

in some notable ways. Servant leadership consistently emphasizes ethics, empowerment, and

development regardless of the situation. Situational leaders may rely more on directive,

authoritative styles like telling in certain scenarios. Servant leaders focus first on the needs of

followers; situational leaders analyze tasks and objectives first. Servant leadership’s unwavering

concentration on service and morality also contrasts with situational leadership’s emphasis on
adaptability (Walls, 2019). However, the two share common ground in their participative,

supportive capabilities and focus on follower growth. Applying situational leadership principles

to understand follower readiness could benefit servant leaders. But servant leadership offers a

principled center that situational leadership lacks.

Transformational Leadership Overview

Transformational leadership, first defined by James MacGregor Burns,aims to inspire

high performance and innovation by cultivating strong commitment to organizational goals (Hai

& Van, 2021). Transformational leaders motivate teams to look beyond self-interest and consider

the collective purpose. Four key behaviors characterize the approach: idealized influence,

inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Khassawneh

& Elrehail, 2022). Idealized influence describes leaders acting as ethical role models who build

trust and confidence. Inspirational motivation involves clearly communicating a compelling

vision to energize teams. Intellectual stimulation means encouraging new thinking, challenging

assumptions, and fostering creativity. Individualized consideration represents supporting

teammates’ personal growth and coaching them.

Servant and transformational leadership share some behaviors like influencing through

role modeling and showing individual consideration for growth (Khassawneh & Elrehail, 2022).

Both emphasize motivating followers and developing them to their highest potential. They aim to

build trusting, transparent relationships. However, transformational leadership focuses on

organizational objectives first. Servant leaders prioritize meeting follower needs and empowering

them. The transformational approach could demand too much of followers rather than providing

caring support. Servant leadership’s explicit ethics and humility also differ from the charismatic

elements of transformational leadership. But both styles recognize the importance of connecting
workers to purpose (Shahzad et al., 2021). Servant leaders must also inspire others towards their

service vision.

Authentic Leadership Overview

Authentic leadership centers on leading with genuineness, emotional intelligence, ethics,

transparency, and self-awareness. As the name suggests, authentic leaders strive to remain true to

themselves and act with integrity guided by internal moral values. Leading by example with

sincerity helps build trust and respect (Hai & Van, 2021). Authentic leaders engage in self-

reflection to align behaviors with personal values and admit mistakes. They understand their own

strengths and limitations, which promotes openness. Emphasizing ethics and transparency aims

to prevent toxic leadership driven by ego. Key qualities include humility, inclusiveness, and

keeping the greater good ahead of self-interest. Authentic and servant leadership share a strong

moral foundation centered on ethics, humility, and prioritizing others' development (Khassawneh

& Elrehail, 2022). Both emphasize self-awareness as critical for leading effectively and avoiding

abuse of power. They align in their sincere desire to empower followers and build communities.

Additionally, the focus on inclusive decision-making generates similar behaviors like active

listening and collaboration. A central difference is that servant leadership defines the greater

good specifically as serving marginalized populations (Shahzad et al., 2021). The emphasis on

community welfare is explicit. While less pronounced, authentic leadership's moral compass

could naturally steer leaders towards service. But servant leadership provides a clearly

articulated values framework that grounds leaders in morality and social justice. It offers a

concrete model for putting ethics into skilled practice.

 Biblical Concept

A relevant biblical passage about leadership is John 13:1-17, which depicts Jesus washing

his disciples’ feet at the Last Supper (New International Version Bible, 930 BC /2023, John 13:1-

17). This act encapsulates servant leadership in action. Jesus, the teacher, assumes a humble role

by washing their feet, demonstrating that a leader is called to serve others above himself. He

states in verse 14, “So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to

wash one another’s feet” (New International Version Bible, 930 BC /2023, John 13:14) This

emphasizes that servant leadership based on service, empathy, and ethics is expected of all,

regardless of status or power. Biblical servant leadership rejects ego and upholds morality. These

principles directly relate to public safety leadership. Like Jesus, public safety leaders are granted

power and authority over others which must be wielded responsibly, not abused for selfish gain.

The mission is to serve the community, especially those most vulnerable. This requires consistent

ethical conduct and decision-making focused on the public interest. Leaders must role model

morality and care for the wellbeing of officers under their stewardship. Biblical servant

leadership provides a guiding framework for balancing power with compassion, social justice,

and humility.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this examination of leadership concepts argues that servant leadership is

optimally aligned with public safety goals and ethical principles. Its emphasis on employee

growth promotes motivated, high performing teams, while the focus on humility and inclusivity

facilitates community trust and engagement. Core values like integrity and service are essential

in roles charged with maintaining order, safety, and human rights. Servant leadership offers a

practical model to lead by empowering, not commanding. Integrating complementary strengths

of other styles can build on this moral foundation. Biblical teachings reinforce that servant

leadership allows living one’s values in action. For public safety fields, this represents leadership

that meets urgent challenges while uplifting both officers and community. Developing a

thoughtful leadership philosophy grounded in service is a career-long journey. For public safety,

adopting an approach like servant leadership rooted in ethics provides a moral compass. Leaders

must examine their motivations and consistently role model values like justice and compassion.

A philosophy is only worthwhile if enacted daily through behaviors like courage, judgment under

pressure, and care for officers and citizens alike. There is no single right style, but moral purpose

must remain steady. Servant leadership illuminated by biblical teachings offers principles to light

the path.
 References

Asbari, M., Santoso, P. B., & Prasetya, A. B. (2020). Elitical and antidemocratic transformational

leadership critics: is it still relevant?(A literature study). International Journal of Social,

Policy and Law, 1(1), 12-16.

Alblooshi, M., Shamsuzzaman, M., & Haridy, S. (2021). The relationship between leadership

styles and organisational innovation: A systematic literature review and narrative

synthesis. European Journal of Innovation Management, 24(2), 338-370.

Fries, A., Kammerlander, N., & Leitterstorf, M. (2021). Leadership styles and leadership

behaviors in family firms: A systematic literature review. Journal of Family Business

Strategy, 12(1), 100374.

Hai, T. N., & Van, Q. N. (2021). Servant leadership styles: A theoretical approach. Emerging

Science Journal, 5(2), 245-256.

Khassawneh, O., & Elrehail, H. (2022). The effect of participative leadership style on

employees’ performance: The contingent role of institutional theory. Administrative

Sciences, 12(4), 195.

Levchak, P. J. (2021). Stop-and-frisk in New York City: Estimating racial disparities in post-stop

outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 101784.

New International Version Bible. (2023). Life.Church Online.

https://www.bible.com/bible/111/PSA.11.5.NIV (Original work published ca 930 BC).

Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage publications.

Shahzad, K., Raja, U., & Hashmi, S. D. (2021). Impact of Big Five personality traits on authentic

leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 42(2), 208-218.

Walls, E. (2019). The value of situational leadership. Community practitioner: the journal of the

Community Practitioners'& Health Visitors' Association, 92(2), 31-33.

Wang, Q., Hou, H., & Li, Z. (2022). Participative leadership: a literature review and prospects

for future research. Frontiers in psychology, 13, 924357.