Power and Leadership

Power motivation is often referred to the “reasons, intentions, and objectives that underline the use of power” (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).  Studies showed that the motivations of many leaders culminate into 3 categories (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012) The first is a socialized power motivation, or high achievement motivation, which has leaders in law enforcing working/seeking to leave a positive impact on the department’s operations as well as administration (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).  The second motivation is called personal power needs, or a high power, which is basically the desire to be in control and the reasons for this motivation are often selfish (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). The final motivation is affiliation needs, which is a “desire to be liked and accepted” (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). This as a motivation is debatable as it puts a stronger forces on acceptance rather than impacting events (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).

Basically a Leadership Skill Mix is a breakdown of a law enforcing department and the skills associated with each level(Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).  The three skills are: 1) human relations, which involve the capacity to interact/engage with other people and levels in a positive way, 2) conceptual, which is having the ability to understand ant to interrelate various parcels of information whether unrelated or not immediately necessary, and 3) technical skills (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). Technical skills tend to vary greatly depending on which level of the department is being looked at. The skills can include budgeting, management, planning and decision making (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).

There are three models to the decision making theory that are said to be the most basic in the majority of literature (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). Rational model revolves around the idea of economic initiatives; we must work harder to obtain the chance to make  more money(Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012) There are 3 assumptions regarding this model: 1) that a person has complete knowledge of all the alternatives available to him/her, 2) that a person has the ability to order preferences according to his/her hierarchy, and 3) that a person has the ability to choose the best alternative (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). The second mode is the incremental model, which actually a modification to the rational model (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).  This was due to Lindbolm citing that the limiting political factors involved in department administration prevented the model from being “rational,” but has the department take a “series of incremental steps” to ensure the safety of the department and the public (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). Thirdly, there is the heuristic model, or the “gut-level model,” where the “crucial element of humanism in decision making” comes into play (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). This approach has been criticized for its simplicity and being nonscientific, as it put a firm focus on emotion rather than logic and reasoning (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).

When making a decision regarding ethical issues, there are several steps that need to taken. First, an ethical issue has to recognize and acknowledged (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). When doing so decision makers look to see the possible damage to individuals as well as the community (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012). The second step is to ensure the facts are checked; making sure that they are relevant to the problem at hand (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).  Next, the decision makers must decide if “individual or groups have an important stake in the outcome” (Swanson, Territo, Taylor, 2012).After evaluating the steps and everything involved, the decision makers then can act on their decision.

Works Cited:

Swanson, Charles R., Territo, Leonard, Taylor, Robert W. (2012) Police Administration: Structures, Processes, and Behaviors. (8th) Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.