Instructions:
- Post a new discussion related to the topics covered in this module. Your post needs to provide specific lessons learned with examples from this module helping you enhance your leadership capacity at work.
- After posting your discussion, review posts provided by other students in the class and reply to at least one of them.
This module caused me to reflect on some of my past supervisors throughout my career. I am sure we have all worked for or with all three types of leaders at some point or another. Upon my reflection, those that I have learned the most from and respected the most were the real leaders. They did the right thing and demonstrated a sincere care for those they led. They encouraged development and growth. They were they leaders others aspired to be and they truly made an impact on their followers lives.
This is an outstanding course, hopefully, in a few years, it won't be needed. It is up to us as leaders to take these practices back to our agencies and implement them as best we can. Most of these practices are just reminders to treat people how we would want to be treated. The real manager gets that. It is not that hard to respect someone or treat them like they matter. It is not that hard to listen to someone and hear what they are saying. It is also up to us to weed out the ladder climbers and help to redirect their moral compass. I have seen several new hires and after a few conversations with them, I knew this was not the correct career field for them. I did not talk about them behind their back, I went to our training unit and let them know of the issues I saw.
Well said Randy. Leaders should never forget where they came from and they must show genuine care for their followers or their success will be greatly limited.
When I began my career in law enforcement I worked for a low-credibility supervisor. He would proudly proclaim an insult that was once directed towards him as a title "Sergeant Mother.....er." He actually wrote an officer up for doing exactly as the officer was instructed to do, by that particular sergeant, for a policy violation. Every citizen complaint was a write up regardless if it was unfounded. He did whatever he needed to do to protect himself. Working for him was miserable. He would smile in your face, say his catch line "hey buddy" with a deep laugh then proceed to stick a knife in your back.
I also had the opportunity to work for an amazing leader. He would discipline officers when they were wrong; however, he would fight tooth and nail when the officer was in the right. He gave me the best piece of leadership advice when I was a new corporal. He told me, anytime one of you officers makes a mistake, the first question you should ask yourself is "is this a training issue?" A lot of times it is a training issue.
Sorry I had the low-credibility leader in mind writing this; however, I meant to say Machiavellian or shakedown style. Though a Machiavellian type is a low-credibility leader.
I have worked for three different agencies in my career and have worked under all three of these styles. Fortunately the real manager style seems to be style of the future.
The real manager style is definitely the style that will be the way of the future in a forward-thinking department.
One key lesson I took away from this module is the importance of balancing empathy and assertiveness. As a manager, it's important to understand the dynamics of any situation and read between the lines to identify potential issues or conflicts. Having empathy allows us to create an environment where employees feel comfortable sharing their concerns, opinions, and feelings. At the same time, it's critical to assert oneself to set boundaries and ensure that everyone is on the right track toward completing tasks and working together effectively.
The ladder leadership principle to me follows the ideal that this is the way we have always done it and we will continue to do it. We promote the to a level of incompetence and beyond someone's capacity to do the job, and not always on purpose from a manager mindset but from the ideal of this is the path we do and not thinking that the person being promoted is doing it for the wrong reasons.
I think that while these ladder styles make sense, I think that the way it is allowed by an agency is the real reason there are problems as our selection processes can fail for promotion, we do not train leaders correctly, we do not support the real leaders who maybe are not legitimate leaders and trying to get them to promote thereby saving ourselves from ladder climb ideals.
A takeaway is that we must break the mold of doing things the way we have always done concerning leadership and management within police organizations. The up-and-coming generation wants to know "why" they are being asked to complete a task. The autocratic "do as I say" style will not generate compelling results, so leaders must adapt to be credible leaders and real managers.
A leader should use the ladder to bring those under them up with them, supporting, training, and mentoring as they go. They strive to be a "wise officer who balances performing social service and crime-fighting job functions with public appearance in mind." (Long 2017).
Well said Daniel. I was raised in life and law enforcement as "do what I say" under a Machiavellian style father and police culture. Although I respond fine to orders from superiors, I have learned that many younger subordinates may not. That was something I had to adapt to as a supervisor.
We can all agree that the idea of pragmatic bureaucrat leadership or a shakedown style of leadership exists, and we have all been exposed to these styles of leaders. The necessary fact is they must be made a leadership style of the past and the future leadership filled with care, group input, selflessness, and a morale-building environment is a must. We are adapting to new situations, people, and challenges in the pursuit of being better and improved.
I am not a fan of the “ladder” per se. As for the Machiavellian and pragmatic bureaucrat styles of management, I deal with them every day. Whether they are formal supervisors, or “up-and-coming” officers, these members of our organizations are cancer. There are several within my organization now and I have even been labeled as one myself (falsely I might add). In my experience, these individuals are very intelligent, charismatic, competent, and conniving. They openly preach empathy, caring, and stewardship but never demonstrate these characteristics fully. There is always a side angle that they benefit from. I believe, as leaders, we have an intrinsic responsibility to develop, support, care, and protect those we have CHOSEN to lead, regardless of the consequences to our own reputations and careers.
Jarrett, I agree with you. Leaders need to remember actions speak louder than words and practice what they preach. A reminder for us as well.
Jarrett, I am on the fence with this concept as well. I feel that the ideals and concepts are a bit to siloed and that it almost forces the ladder climbers into categories that do not look at all the factors involved and the department input or past that may cause this to occur or justify exceptions and/or interpretations.
This module highlighted the characteristics of the shakedown and bureaucrat leader and explained their negative influence. Having a resource that clearly articulates the behaviors is a great way to either correct it or weed it out from our up and coming leaders.
After watching the video explaining Real Manager. I now understand the true meaning of what it is to be a "real manager". The real manager, when it relates to the ladder Leadership practice, is the type of leader I will definitely add to my toolbox as I continue to strive to be a better leader and enhance my leadership skills. The real manager is one who balance the care for their subordinates with effective public service, physical responsibility, and guardians of public trust.
Ladder leadership is everywhere. I know everyone has experienced any number of these leadership styles in their careers. I remember when I first started, it seemed that most of the supervisors had the shakedown style of leadership and was very hard to work like that. As the years pasted and most of them are retired or gone, it has gotten better. I’m hoping that the few of us who have gone through this training can really begin to get the momentum going in the right direction away from the shakedown supervisor to the real managers style.
yes, we all have had those leaders that we worked for that we knew for a fact only cared abut their own advancement rather than the better of all that supported them. I vowed once i was giving the chance to lead; that I would not be like those types of leaders. This course had opened up my mind and heart to so much better way of thinking and areas of change that i need to adjust myself in.
Within the last few years, older officers who possess the traits of the shakedown style and the pragmatic bureaucrat are fading out. New concepts and leadership programs are being implemented and required as younger officers progress through the ranks/ladder. This is slowly changing in favor of the “Real Leader.” This may not ever be a foolproof system, but the good ole days are becoming to be a story vs a reality.
I agree, Cory,
I, too, have seen the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat styles of leadership fading out in my organization. The up-and-coming generation wants to know "why" they are being asked to complete a task. The autocratic "do as I say" style will not generate compelling results, so leaders must adapt.
This module has shown me ladder leadership and the negativity it could bring to an agency. Also the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucratic style of leadership. These types of leaders can be found in every agency. We must work to make all leaders real managers. This would be best for every agency.
The Module gave me a better understanding of the Ladder Leadership and I can see how detrimental that a shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucratic style actually can be for an organization. Those types of leaders are alive and well in all agencies and they thrive off of their own personal agenda.
I agree very much so.
I have so many examples in my 20 years of shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat styles of leaders. I also have a few examples early on of the real manager styles. The good news is that I have seen a culture shift in the last 5-10 years that includes actual leadership training, something that was missing in the past. In the past you learned from watching your leaders and often new leaders grew into the mold of old leaders which meant no real significant change would ever occur. Leadership training now includes discussion on how to understand human nature and how to take care of those you are responsible for watching over.
Officers traditionally have little control over their careers. I am encouraged by this module that leaders recognize this and its impact on careers. Our career field must identify the talented and encourage those real leaders to step up. Leadership is more than testing well or controlling budgets. The story of watching out, so you don't get stepped on is very on point in some agencies. This creates alliances and doesn't encourage new ideas.
Joseph Spadoni, Jr.
Session #15
The shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucrat style have been used for years in agencies and this module presents the problems it causes for agencies hindering them from reaching success. Organizations will not be successful by allowing these types of leadership styles to continue within an agency where leaders are only looking out for themselves. Agencies need to adapt to the change and have their leaders lead with the Real manager style.
Session #015
I think that the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat styles or some combination thereof are very common in law enforcement. The Machiavellian managers either real or perceived will keep these styles alive. As future leaders, we have to work to get rid of the vindictive leaders form our agencies. This will help others to speak up without concern of retaliation.
This material shows the impact negative motives can have within an organization. Agencies will never be successful as long as its leaders prioritize their own gain at the expense of others.
Cedric, I agree. Agencies that continue to allow the negative impacts that shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat-style leadership put on an agency will not reach the level of success that they could if they shift to change and have their leaders care more about subordinates rather than the leaders just caring about themselves.
I believe that the shakedown model has been used by police for so long that the organizations do not know any other way. But also, as officers we feel that our way is the best way and that no one can tell us any different. This is a good example of because we have been doing it this way in the past.
I absolutely agree that the shakedown model has been used extensively by police departments for a long period of time, and the officers feel confident in its efficacy. As an officer myself, I acknowledge that there is a certain amount of comfort for some in continuing with this model due to its familiarity. It's important that we strive towards making improvements while still staying true to the fundamentals of law enforcement.
It really is discerning that many law enforcement professionals naturally fall into the "Shakedown" style due to the nature of our line of work, but it just as bad that the culture is allowed to exist and continue to grow in the profession.
I agree. This is something that should be changed but will come under fire. We as future leaders need to have courage to affect change.
This is why leadership training is so important. I agree that the Shakedown style does come naturally for cops so proper training is necessary to get new leaders to see the right path forward in their leadership journey.
Out of all three styles to me the real manager style is the style that leaders should model themselves after.
It is clear to me that many officers have been conditioned to use the shakedown style in their job performance. Due to the success and constant use of the shakedown method in interreacting with the public, it has become second nature to the officers, who use it in every facet of their lives.
This model definitely helped give more inside into the difference between the shake-down style and a pragmatic bureaucrat style of leadership. Seems like both leadership styles would be disliked by followers and they would eventually fail to influence others.
The real manager is a working leaders who is there for their subordinates and accomplish a mission. These are the type of leaders we should strive to be.
As I read about the Ladder Principle, this statement stood out to me, "Within the police organization one can see the climbers who are easily recognized as potentially treacherous. They stand out as individuals with a primary goal of promotion to a higher rank who will do what is necessary to get recognized for that promotion." You see this behavior during every promotion assessment we have. I have dubbed it "Promotion Season" because the officers that are rarely productive, all of a sudden are, and the others begin their politicking for a position, sometimes to the detriment of more worthy candidates.
I think many of us have seen what you describe. They may want status and power associated with promotion while increased responsibility and leadership could be distant notions.
This module helped me better grasp the ladder principle from the previous module. I have dealt with a Pragmatic Bureaucrat Leadership style in the past; I did not know it had a name. The description provided matches the observed behavior perfectly. We still have a shakedown style manager that needs to be removed for the agency to grow. These behaviors are apparent to everyone below them and have been pointed out to those above.
I have also struggled with this concept from the past module but the description does fit many in law enforcement. Through continued efforts, I hope that many departments can thwart those out that do not allow the growth of others.
I rather enjoyed this module, which was more or less a recitation of the original article by Irwin and Normore. The ladder principle, which was discussed in the last module, is obviously adverse to any successful style of leadership. I have also known Machiavellian or shakedown style leaders, mostly of the generation just previous to mine, who have difficulty with change and adaptation to new ways of thinking and doing things (to include technology). I have also worked with (and for) many pragmatic bureaucrats and they aspire to be no more than managers. They lack the charisma and the ability to inspire as a real leader must. The problem with both of these leaders is that they do not garner much respect or credibility. “Real managers” are the ones we aspire to become.
The lack of charisma and the ability to inspire, is true when we see officers promoted to positions they are really not intended for. Promoting people because it's the lesser of the evils. Other issues agencies deal with is high turnover because of the shakedown and pragmatic leaders. In a fairytale department, every leader/supervisor would be a "Real manager" and departments wouldn't have any black eyes in public view.
Bravo. I agree completely. I would add that I have even experienced these same cancerous supervisors calling others out for these actions to pull the attention off themselves. They are conniving and a death sentence to organizations over time.
Another great lesson that talks of leadership styles I have seen in my career. Shake down or authoritarian by unchecked cynicism stemming from a career of outstanding street police work, and possibly an unhealthy lifestyle.
Once defined more clearly, most people that have been in this field for any amount of time have witnessed what "shakedowners" and "pragmatics" do to a department and realized the importance of being "real."
I agree, Todd. It isn't hard to pick them out in your mind, and if I'm being honest, I can think of times in my career when I have struggled with some of the same issues. It's cool to see it in writing and to study it as a model of "what not to do." This course is definitely for those desiring to be "real" leaders.
Ladder Leadership: I have observed the Shakedown and Pragmatic Leadership styles throughout my work life but have never subscribed to it. This person is like a cancer that needs to be cut out if the organization is to thrive. I have witnessed and always wondered why a business or organizational head would rarely deal with this leadership style that caused so much turmoil and turnover as discussed in the lecture. I think the answer is that the organizational head was not trained or equipped to handle this type of leadership, so it persists.
I have wondered this myself, and I think you are correct in your assessment that the top of the ladder lacks the leadership development to see it for what it is and remove it. The other side to the coin is while these individuals are stepping on the ones below them on the ladder, they a kissing up to the rear ends of the ones above them.
This module brought back memories of supervisors I had in years past. The shakedown style brings down the morale within a department. Some people over indulge in the power and authority bestowed upon them by being an officer and that mentality carries over into any higher position they achieve. As time has passed, I feel as a department it has improved by constantly providing leadership training once promoted.
I, too, thought of several of my old supervisors during this module. The department has changed over the years, and we see less cynical sergeants and more reel managers.
There is nothing improper with employees who wish to move up the chain of command. However, the driving force behind their desire to move up must be one of service and not of selfish ambition. Leaders who are focused on self are clearly obvious to those under their command. However, those above the selfish leader may not easily recognize a ladder leader due to the façade presented by that ladder leader. When leaders are out for themselves and not focused on serving those they lead, the organization, and the citizens, morale and work quality will drop. There is not a great deal we can do to change the ladder leader’s heart. Ladder leadership primarily is a heart issue, although office culture can play a role. Department leadership must identify those who clearly desire to serve others and place them in leadership positions. The leaders who wish only to serve self must be willing to change their focus to one of service. Removing a culture of ladder leadership can help some change their focus but there will always be those who put self before others.
This is a spot-on observation. Unfortunately, sometimes department leadership does not have appropriate measures in place to counteract this behavior. Also, I have not found a promotional process that weeds these individuals out.
I thought it was funny that I just wrote an essay about the Ladder leadership style and then saw that this module what about the ladder leadership style. It is interesting learning these styles and trying to think of who I have worked with over the years that held either of these styles of leadership.
It is amazing how learning at these unhealthy leadership styles makes me respect the healthy styles even more. I hope that if I move higher in this organization, I will remember to ask those at the bottom for their true opinion of some of their supervisors. I may not be able to see the true side of those promoting if they are constantly blowing smoke up my *%%.
I think I actually find the pragmatic bureaucrat style to be the more insidious of the unhealthy styles. At least with the shakedown style, you're going to tend to know it's going on, because the outward behavior of the supervisor is going to make it pretty clear. On the other hand, the supervisor using a pragmatic bureaucrat style will tend to be more manipulative. He's a lot more likely to be playing organizational double agent, making himself look good at the expense of his people when addressing command, and making himself look good at the expense of command when addressing his people. This style shows a general lack of integrity, because the leader's behavior is not moored to anything except his own ambitions or plans.
Jeff,
I had not thought about the pragmatic leader in that way, but you are exactly right. The shakedown leader can be spotted from a mile away, especially among those under their command. I believe both the shakedown and pragmatic leader will manipulate their behavior to those above them on the chain of command. However, the pragmatic leader may manipulate the trust developed with subordinates for their own gain down the road. I prefer to not work with either type of leader, but I know I have in the past and probably will again. I know there can be a culture of ladder leadership at times, but culture can be changed. It is those ladder leaders who cannot be influence by a positive leadership culture I worry about as that is a heart issue for that leader.
Although I have seen examples of all three types of these managerial styles throughout my career, I was surprised that according to Long (2017), “We may see a greater propensity toward the psychopathic personality traits in police managers than we might elsewhere.” I guess I’ve been fortunate to work at a smaller agency where the shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucrat style were more easily detected and rejected. I believe that we need to try to find or develop tools to identify those who would be shakedown or pragmatic bureaucrat style leaders if promoted.
Overall I would have liked to have seen more from this module. I agree the Real Manager is the style we should be practicing. I have worked for people who follow the Pragmatic Bureaucrat and Shakedown leadership styles. These styles only benefit one person and do nothing to promote leadership throughout the agency. More examples and better definitions of the different styles would have been beneficial in this module.
This module discussed three different leadership styles. Two problematic leadership styles, the shake down style and pragmatic bureaucrat, as well as an effective leadership style the real manager. During my career, I believe I have worked around leaders of each style and some that were in between more than one style. Although the shakedown style may get results in limited settings through the use of power, I have seen this backfire and not wield the desired results over a longer course of time. The examples I have witnessed have caused employees to resist the supervisor's goals even if this resistance occurs behind the scenes. The real manager cares for their employees and builds relationships with them as well as focuses on the organization's mission and community needs. Building relationships with employees has been a common theme throughout this course.
I think you're right that these styles tend to backfire eventually. Unfortunately, that's too often only after the person has already been promoted. Most assessment systems (ours included) don't really have mechanisms to expose this in the assessment process, so even if leadership in the organization knows that this potential candidate has these propensities, there may be little they can do about it. I wonder how we might have some kind of stop-gap built into our assessment processes to prevent these types of people from getting promoted.
Perfectly said, I think in law enforcement nowadays, it is difficult keeping officers when your using the shake down style. As a leader they should be asking how they can help, support and inspire the teams to make the organization stronger.
This module discussed two problematic leadership styles. The shakedown style is based on exercising power for others at all costs. The main purpose is for control. This is a very destructive leadership style and unfortunately is one that is far too often found in law enforcement leadership. Simply due to the natural rank structure much like the military it is easy to fall into the trap of who do I need to get promoted and who is expendable. The pragmatic bureaucrat style is just a more polished version of the shakedown style. Their main concern is themselves and will only bother with those that are beneath them if there is some benefit for them to do so. This person can manipulate people into thinking that they are good leaders. Real managers are doing the job with their subordinates and care for their welfare.
It is our duty to identify, expose, reform, or remove any leaders in our organization that can be classified as shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucrat style leaders. Removal will need to be done through their failure to perform their function inline with agency mission and core values.
It was interesting to explore the three different managerial styles. As I went through the lesson, each type invoked a picture of a person within my career that represented that style. I thought about how each carried emotion with it and it somewhat surprised how much the past toxic leaders still affect me today. This in turn made me realize how damaging the first two types, Shakedown and Pragmatic Bureaucrat, can be to an individual. It takes significant time and trust building to overcome that damage and to start to have faith that things can be different and you do have value.
In this module the in depth explanation of the shakedown and pragmatic styles helped me understand what they were talking about better. While they both hold the ladder principle to be true it is obvious that these leadership styles are only focused on the power that the leader perceives to have. The real manager style is more concerned about the subordinates and cares about the public that he / she is serving.
You make a great point on the leaders' perceived power. Both the shakedown and pragmatic style of leadership is problematic to the overall health of the organization. These styles truly just focus on what the leader can gain or lose depending on where they are on this ladder of leadership. The concept of being a real manager is what all credible leaders are attempting to achieve.
Dr. Long hit on some key points when it came to real managers. They are successful, and they care for others. When you have a good leader who cares for others and their wellbeing, it creates an environment of peace. Being in law enforcement is already stressful enough, so having a leader who builds trust within the community and is genuine with their subordinates makes life a little less stressful.
I agree that building relationships and truly caring are key characteristics of a real manager. The idea of caring for subordinates and building strong relationships with them has been a common theme throughout this course.
This module did a good job discussing and describing the Ladder Principle and the Shakedown Style. When I first came into the department it seemed the department’s leadership used the shakedown style in all their encounters with subordinates. They created obedience by fear and created a divide within the department. It has taken years to get past it, even after they all retired. The Real Manager model is what we are all striving to be.
The "Shakedown" style of leadership was, unfortunately, the majority leadership style in the Army. I called it the "Hey You" leaders who would call on any soldier within a vicinity for a task. The "hey you" was an unconscious way of saying that although I know your name, you have no identity because I have a job to complete. I do see this bleed over into law enforcement. I can name several leaders in my organization that fit both the Shakedown style and the Pragmatic, Bureaucratic style. It's my job to learn what I don't like about their leadership styles and pass a better way down to those I serve.
Dr. Long continued the explanation on the Ladder Principle. He also explained more on the shakedown style, the pragmatic bureaucrat style, and the real manager. Each leader should strive to be the real manager style. The real manager is a working leader who also is there for his/her subordinates. It is through the real manager style that leaders will be able to develop into their full potential.
I have worked for both a large agency and a small agency. I have experienced both the “shakedown style” and the “pragmatic bureaucrat” manager. The “shakedown style” has been the more obvious in my experience. What we should all seek to be are “Real Managers”. I have had the pleasure of knowing and working with a few in my career and it has been those few relationships that I have treasured and tried to form my own leadership style after.
Stephanie - I think we have all worked for a leader of each of these styles, or alongside one at least, and using their examples to model our careers after is a good idea of how learning leadership is supposed to work.
Many cultures exhibit the Shakedown style, I believe, because that is how it has always been done, not necessarily because of ill intentions. These managers are easy to spot, and if given the change, many subordinates shy away from them. However, the Pragmatic Bureaucrat seems to be the most dangerous manager. They show concern just enough to allow people to trust them but when it comes time to make decisions they tend to leave their subordinates high and dry. At least with a Shakedown manager, you know what you are going to get from the beginning and it allows subordinates a chance to protect themselves.
Dustin,
I will agree with you that Pragmatic Bureaucrat may be the most dangerous managers. They tend to have double standards. They will look after subordinates if it will benefit them, use them and their work to get promoted and then leave them hanging. They don't continue to help that subordinate after they are done using them. Unfortunately most of the time they get away with it. They get promoted on the backs of their subordinates.
I liked how this module added more detail into the Ladder Principle. Dr. Long did a great job explaining the effects they have on an organization. I have seen all three within my organization. Luckily we have more "Real Managers" than we do pragmatic and shakedown styles. Their is no room within a department for supervisors looking out for only themselves and not their subordinates.
I agree, Johnathan. A real manager's leadership style is a better way of leading. These leaders care for their subordinates and take time to be personable. This shows that the leader cares not only for the organization but also for everyone who helps the organization succeed. Great post!
I agree, this is what leaders should strive to be.
I believe this module simply reiterated the previous. Also, towards the end it appears as if Dr. Long was simply reading from the article by Irvin and Normore. Either way the points are valid, the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat cannot be allowed to continue in law enforcement.
I agree. I actually pulled up the article and read along with him. I would have liked to have had a bit more descriptions of the three types. Maybe in more laymen's terms so they were easier to understand the differences. This was not one of my favorite modules. I do agree the real manager is the type of leader we should all strive to be.
Dr. Long did an excellent job in illustrating how a “real manager” should lead in their police organization. To be successful, the leader must balance out the care for their subordinates, show a fiscal responsibility, and build trust within the community they serve and protect. Additionally, through life experience, being genuine, and treating others as the way you would want to be treated is critical in the leader’s achievement. If the leader’s mission, vision, and purpose of the organization is clear, it will attract others to the agency an retain the employees on staff from leaving the organization.
I don't think it could be said any better, simply treat others the way you want to be treated. We do still have a job to do, but if you aren't dealing with a toxic employee, just treat them right and they will do the job.
Agreed. The real manager is what all leaders should strive to be.
This module showed and described each of the three manager styles. I have experienced all three in my life but I'm sure at some point I have displayed all three too. These modules are showing how important understanding, developing and teaching these styles and what roles they play within any organization. As a leader, I have to identify any employees displaying destructive styles and sway them away from them so they can become effective leaders.
This module describes the Ladder Principle in detail, and it is evident that the Pragmatic Bureaucrat and the Shakedown style of leadership is something to stay away from. These styles are not the styles that should be instituted within the organization. I see these types of leaders within my organization, and it is evident which category they fall into.
Jerrod, not only do we need to stay away from the pragmatic bureaucrat and shakedown style, we need to be aware of any employees displaying these styles and get them away from the styles as well.
Jerrod, you are correct. This module did a good job describing the Ladder Principle in more detail. I also see pragmatic and shakedown styles of leadership in my agency. I am afraid this is a problem in most agencies. Supervisors that look out for only themselves are not leaders.
I think all of us in law enforcement have experienced the shakedown leader, pragmatic leader, and the real manager. After gaining years of experience in this line of work, you can see how we can develop these styles or traits. However, we must challenge ourselves to do the right thing and think about the development of our followers, who are the future leaders in our line of work.
Glenn, I agree with your post. The development of our future leaders will assist reducing the agencies headaches and cost of subordinates leaving the organization.
I agree, Glenn. The leaders we work to develop today not only shape the future of our work, but they are key in ensuring shakedown and pragmatic bureaucratic leadership styles cease to exist because they are no longer acceptable.
I agree with you Glenn. If we need to lead by example for the future leaders, then they need to learn by example from a real manager.
After reviewing this module it’s nice to finally have polite names for these toxic leaders operating under the shake down style and as a pragmatic bureaucrat. It is unfortunate that these types of managers are still around but hopefully as training such as we are receiving continues, more leaders will be able to identify these individuals and be in position to weed them from our agencies..
Curtis,
You’re correct in saying that unfortunately these types of leaders still exist. Through us being able to properly identify them, we can sway our decisions in giving them the opportunity for growth that they desire by simply redirecting how we choose the best person for the job. We need to look deeper in the way these leaders of the future are chosen and ensure that we are choosing the right people for the positions based on their true mind set and vision for moving forward.
As stated above, both Pragmatic Beurocrat and Shakedown leaders are toxic. I have personally worked for a Pragmatic Beurocrat supervisor and it fits him to the tee. I can tell you first hand it bred contempt, distrust, and there was little unity within the division at that time. I personally used it as the example of who not to be and grew from it.
I have not previously heard of the ladder leadership. When I was reading the ladder principle advice, I was a little shocked because it did seem to be very self-centered. It seemed that the advice is suggesting that if you are trying to promote within your organization you have to ignore the people below you and watch out for the supervisors above you. My problem with this advice is that, if you are promoted you have to supervise all the people you just ignored. That just doesn't seem like good leadership to me.
Jared, you may not have heard of Ladder Leadership, but you have probably seen it. This leadership style is prevalent in military and paramilitary organizations. It’s a terrible way to lead at the expense of your subordinates or any legacy you hope to leave behind.
I found the four seminal typologies to be quite interesting in this module. I agree with which ones officers tend to be in depending on their time on the job as it was spot on for me. After reflection, I realize that it's unfortunate that this is true, especially since the younger officers are the ones who have the most interaction and impact with citizens. After completing this module, I now know that I need to concentrate on the younger officers and help them to not fall into those typologies.
Donald is correct in that the impact these types of leadership have on the younger generation of officers could be catastrophic. I think when you have "been around" and gained some experience you are better suited to deal with these types of personalities. Whereas if you are new into law enforcement this could pattern how you lead or worse force you out of the profession.
The managerial styles of the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat are problematic in organizations. Morale is lowered, staff feel trapped and look elsewhere to find fulfillment. Often times when problems arise and upper management is made aware the issue has manifested into poor staff performance. We essentially tie the hands of our staff, telling them to do better when we ourselves are not improving and turning a blind eye to the source of the problem.
Like many others, this module has made me think of several of the leaders I have had over the years in my career. Many of the previous leaders I have had were Pragmatic Bureaucratic leaders. They were lost and acted like managers more than leaders throughout their tenures. This leadership style is extremely counterproductive and wears on the organization overtime. These leaders are for themselves and help those who they see as friends instead of those who are hard workers and have excelled.
Zach,
I think that pragmatic bureaucratic leaders are toxic in any organization, but especially in law enforcement. It can be difficult to complete tasks under the pragmatic bureaucratic leader.
Zach, I'm positive we have all had those types of leaders and still do in many respects. I think the breakdown isn't in the problem leaders but the leaders above who can't or won't see those below them behaving in that way and continue to promote those types of leaders.
If I’m honest, I’ve seen myself in all three styles of leadership. We live in a dog-eat-dog world and if you don’t look out for yourself, who will? Success is not solely due to my nice attitude and concern for others, although that is a large part of who I am. I have had to advocate for myself and “pay homage” to those above me on the ladder. They make decisions that directly influence whether I move up that ladder or hold the bottom steady for others climbing up. I have worked on projects that reflect my skills and abilities because I know it will reflect well on me when promotional decisions must be made. Yet, I am real. I serve my subordinates as best I can. I balance these styles in a manner that focuses on others first, self-second, and those up the ladder last. Yet, sometimes that balance gets out of whack depending on the people above and my personal goals. I may sound like an ass here, but I’m trying to be real.
Thanks for the laugh Brian! I appreciate your honesty and I can understand what you are saying.
I feel there is a lot to be learned from pragmatic and shakedown leaders in the arena of what to stay clear of when it comes to leadership. I don't see how either style could be an environment of cultivating future leaders, encouraging innovation or have any kind of positive impact on morale.
As I watched this module, it seems as though the Shakedown method is a form of "bullying" or abuse of power. That style of leadership ruins morale and the team concept. Its' going totally against the concept of building a cohesive and trustworthy team. The Shakedown style is not a method that will sustain the morale and integrity of an organization.
Agreed Kevin. It is difficult to change someone using that managerial style. Upper management will likely do nothing until it has gotten completely out of hand and even then, there will only be a slap on the wrist. I have had many run-ins with a peer that continues bullying to get what he wants. Even when talked to by his supervisors remains defiant in changing how he does things.
As I watched this module, it seems as though the Shakedown method is a form of "bullying" or abuse of power. That style of leadership ruins morale and the team concept. Its' going totally against the concept of building a cohesive and trustworthy team.
Allowing Pragmatic and Shakedown style of leaders may produce positive some positive results but cause more harm to the agency. These type of leaders want self advancement and don't think of others which create a problematic environment and damage s an agency. Allowing these type of styles to lead with ion the agency will cause low morale, higher turn over and over all mediocre productivity.
This type of Shakedown or Machiavellian style of leadership, as well as the Pragmatic Bureaucrat is what destroys the morale of agencies and drives good officers away. They are more concerned about their own careers that they lose sight of the mission and vision of the agency. It is all about them while the real leaders are carrying all of the water, so to speak. It is unfortunate and more often the result of political influence that these individuals posses which allows them to continue.
These leaders seem to always get by without having much of an impact. They do the bare minimum of what is required of them with little to no regard for others. It takes a strong group of people to bring to light these types of behavior and the way their actions affect the people under their command. Training programs will often help these people to see the error of their ways.
I agree that training may help but these leaders have to see their fault or training may not help. I would think a deeper reason for their style exists and must be confronted by their leaders. Its strange how these styles are easy to notice by subordinates but appears difficult for higher supervisors to notice and address.
As I watched this module, I began to think of some of my old supervisors. I can now say that I have worked for some Pragmatic Bureaucrat leaders and some real management style leaders. I am lucky that recently my department has adopted a great leadership program that is working on building better leaders and more real management style leaders
The shakedown style is built on power and influence over others. They desire power over others and desire promotions early on in their careers. This type of leader is very focused on their advancement within the organization and will stop at nothing to attain their own goals. It is known that the team members. All of this causes a lack of trust within the teams and leads to poor productivity within the organization. These types of leaders should be identified early on by real managers and be dealt with swiftly.
These leaders are a poison within the organization. They are self-minded and do what is necessary for them to achieve their personal goals, stopping short of nothing. They bring no real positivity to the team and are often the cause of morale issues.
I agree with you emphatically on this Kevin and it if not dealt with, will ruin the morale of an agency.
Couldn't have put it better myself Kevin....basically in simple terms the Shakedown style seems to be a "bully" style.
I used to think real, wise, good, and cautious were words that could be used to describe an officer that is good at their job. I am looking at these a bit differently now. I can look back at my career and think of times where I have been almost all of these. I hope that through years of experience and training that I can balance the need for social services with the need for justice.
As leaders who supervise other supervisors, I think it is important we do not take the "easy way out" and allow shakedown or pragmatic styles of leadership, just because they may produce desired end results. I think it is important to be mindful of the long term health of the organization and team members, and insure that we "have the right people on the bus" (as Jim Collins says) in supervisory positions.
It has always and still does amaze me that these two types of so called leaders can and do get away with what they do and how they do it. I really enjoyed Dr. Long referring to them as "psychopathic."
I agree. Two many leaders are allowed to get away with these styles of managers. Psychopathic was never a term I had applied to most of them but after listening to the presentation I can see how it applies.
I enjoyed the part of the lecture that discussed the 4 seminal typologies. The wise officer, the real officer, the good officer, and the cautious officer. As it was discussed, several officers that I know came into mind for each type. When he discussed the shakedown style, I was a bit confused because I felt that he was talking about so many different things at one time. I think that when he discussed the pragmatic style, it was more precise. Overall, I enjoyed how the ladder principle was discussed and how it reminded us where we should be as a leader on the ladder.
Its amazing to me how often I have witnessed the Ladder style in action. As we prepare to be selfless, authentic leaders, it bodes well for us to review the types of leadership that are destructive. It is sage to do so. Reviewing these typologies prepares us for the times when we, as leaders, must step in and curb such behavior. However, most importantly, it gives us keen insight to recognize when we ourselves may be about to get off the rails. I found the information in the module to be most helpful in preparing us to also coach and mentor our colleagues in order to stamp out this undesirable behavior.
Very good point. As discussed in a previous module, we can not achieve organizational change until we are willing to engage in personal change. This module gave me a lot to be mindful of and ensure I avoid.
This module picked up directly where the previous module left off. I did appreciate how Dr. Long expanded on the psychological profiles of the managers that use the shakedown and bureaucrat style. I have never worked with a manager that used the shakedown style that I am aware of but I have encounter the pragmatic bureaucrat (Long, 2017). They were not my favorite supervisor by far as they only ever seem to care when they need me. It is a very poor excuse for a leader.
Long, L. (2017). Ladder leadership. Module 10, Weeks 5 & 6. National Command and Staff College.
Ronald- After 34 years I have seen my share of more of these folks than I care to count. It is amazing to me the way some of these folks are still practicing our craft even today, but even more disturbing that some of them have been imminently successful.
Best and stay safe-
Ken
Unfortunately I have experienced my fair share of shakedown and pragmatic leaders. It was frustrating watching these individuals operate openly within our organization without any consequence for their actions. I learned a lot of what not to do as a leader from these individuals.
Agreed. And I could nor can I now figure out how they were allowed to succeed. The closest I've come is that despite all of the obvious character flaws, they often get the job done so therefore the higher ups figure, let them go.
That's unfortunate, Jay. I think every organization has one or two in their leadership or manager positions. Makes it even more important to avoid that type of behavior and lead by example for the rest in the agency.
Prior to this module, I had never thought of these two types of styles Although I have seen the Shakedown leadership around my Agency and appears those are the ones who are rewarded. This was an eye-opener and a great lesson.
Derek, I agree this was a great lesson. I had never heard of those terms before. Luckily, I have not had to work for a Shakedown leader before but have heard all about them. From what I have heard, they were always the ones that were rewarded.
I enjoyed the part of the lesson that talked about the four seminal typologies: the wise officer, the real officer, the good officer, and the cautious officer. I started reflecting on my organization and trying to determine who may fall into each of the typologies. I would agree with the lesson when they said that positions at the bottom of the organization tend to be the more cautious officer and those at the top tend to be more the wise officers. It is a bit concerning that those at the bottom of the organization, the patrol officers and detectives, tend to be the more cautious officers. The cautious officers are defined as cynical or as disinterested avoiders. As the main contact with the public, this group of officers set the tone for our interactions with the community. It will definitely be an area of focus for me going forward to identify any cautious officers on my shift, and to work with them towards a different typology.
Maybe they are cautious due to current or prior experiences with Machiavellian leaders? Is their cynicism a direct result of having their toes stepped on by someone above them on the ladder? I’ll admit, though, his inclusion of these four types of typologies when talking about self-serving leaders was a bit contradictory. If he claims senior officers to be wise and good, but then says those same officers are also selfishly looking up the ladder, what is the connection? I just didn’t quite connect the dots on this topic, even after listening again…
Interesting that both leadership styles are self-serving and focuses on the advance of the leader, at the peril of others. While the shakedown leader may be more willing to disadvantage others, the pragmatic leader will do it as well when necessary. I find this an interesting characteristic of these two leadership styles and how to conflicts with servant leadership. Its interesting to see how these styles fit individuals I have known.
Capt. Decker,
I am sure we can all think of people that we have encounter throughout our careers that were self-serving. But the important point is to identify those individuals and try to coach them into becoming better leaders or minimizing their negative impact.
I feel that many agencies have always rewarded shakedown leaders because that is what they were taught. It is our responsibility as new leaders to help our agency teach those with this behavior that are still among our ranks. We can no longer accept and promote those that have this positional and authoritative style of management. This will help our agency produce better leaders.
I agree, it's an unfortunate leadership style that is reinforced through reward. I don't think it's intentional, but I now thinks its important to notice it and try to correct it and offer better styles of leadership when we can. The advancement at the peril of others has to go.
You are right. I also think that they are rewarded because this is what the top wants. In order to change this, we have to implement and promote other leadership styles.
It was interesting to see how the shakedown style of leadership seems to come naturally to those in our profession. When we are removed from day to day duties dealing with the public and still apply the same tactics to dealing with issues it can become problematic. This in essence is policing our subordinates instead of leading them. Leaders should focus on building their relationships with their subordinates and working for the success of the organization, not just themselves.
This was an interesting module in the way it broke down the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat styles of leadership. I have seen, on occasion, the shakedown style of leader, however, that seems to be rarer than the pragmatic bureaucrat style. The pragmatic style seems to have greater survivability because it can create optics that the leader might actually care about their subordinates. In reality, however, the pragmatic bureaucrat only cares for themself, which is why it is important to talk to an individual's subordinates to truly understand how a leader is doing.
When studying the shakedown, pragmatic and the real manger, I believe I would be more concerned with the Pragmatic style. With the shakedown style it seems as if they would be readily recognizable, where the pragmatic reminds me as the wolf in sheep`s clothing. I would think that style would be more difficult to deal with. This module was an eye opener.
Scott when I began my career in law enforcement I was warned about those wolves in sheep clothing. There are still a few around but most have been weeded out.
I never looked at it that way, but you are correct. The pragmatic leader is a wolf just like the shakedown style leader, but dressed in sheep's clothing.
This module is a wake up call to us all. It shows us the easy path which is the shakedown style. While this style might get the immediate result you are looking for it is the least desirable style to have. Eventually there will be collapse within your organization as no one will be looking out for each other they will only be concerned about themselves
I agree. An organization full of shakedown leaders would be a nightmare to work in! This is great information to bring awareness to the issue and to help leaders take steps to ensure they do not fall down this path.
This lesson has reminded me how important it is to do self-assessments and seek feedback from our peers and supervisor to avoid developing habits from a shakedown leadership style. A shakedown style is undoubtedly easier because you've asserted you have the final say, but it severely impacts morale in the department. It also deters employees from helping identifying solutions to problems.
I agree Travis. This lesson was a reminder to do a self-assessment because once morale is low in an organization or even a department, it's hard to pick it back up.
The most disturbing part of this lecture to me was the comment that more Psychopathic traits may be seen in Police Managers than in other professions. I wish the lesson would have spoke about why that is a little more. The last thing law enforcement needs today is to be labeled as such.
I’ve been fortunate enough to have managerial leaders in my career that fit the Real Manager Style. Having strong morals, while being authentic to their subordinates and community they serve, are characteristics I’ve been lucky to be a part of. They have balanced care with their subordinates with efficient public service, fiscal responsibility, and maintaining public trust along the way. I have, however, seen other managers outside of my agency only show concern to those below them as necessary to deal with issues. This Pragmatic Bureaucrat Style is evident the manager thinks of themselves first and those under them, second.
I can clearly recall working for all of the three types of ladder leadership managerial styles. The shakedown leader was harder on his deputies than he was on his inmates. No one appreciated him, and most of us avoided him like the Coronavirus! The pragmatic bureaucrat was never heard or seen. We knew that he existed, because of the frequent emails he sent out, advising us what our jobs were and how we should be doing them. The real manager showed up early and always worked late. He knew what was going on in our personal lives and made it a point to spend time with each one of us. We trusted him and knew that he had our best interest at heart.
The people we work with have personal goals and being a little selfish is not a bad thing. We can take the little selfish way too far, the shakedown style of leadership is a detriment to everyone. The leader may get ahead or get the promotion but he/she leaves in their wake is misery and distrust. Once a person becomes a leader and starts treating subordinates like criminal suspects there is a high likely hood people will quit the leader and organization. The pragmatic or bureaucrat leader can not hide from the subordinates. Their actions and intentions are visible from a mile away, and they don't care who knows it.
It is amazing to me the number of excuses police executives throw out when their department is thrown into the public spotlight. These people are clearly fighting for their jobs and often either employ, or simply are by nature, a Machiavellian or pragmatic leader. They have no concern for their employees as they blame the officer, their training, training staff, the unions or mediation services. What I see happening in organizations from my point of view is that when Chiefs finally hold their people accountable, it is too late and there has not been proper documentation and processes followed. Sure, there’s a little to show the chief “tried” but not enough had been done early enough to make a much longer lasting impression to enhance the department. Authoritarian and pragmatic leaders of the past (and a lot are still here today) are to blame for a lackluster police culture in many large organizations.
The shakedown leadership style has more potential to destroy morale quickly due to the potential of power grabs or moves and that power going to the heads of leaders. Pragmatic, being a softer approach i think could give better results while the leader still having power to assure tasks are completed and the works gets done. The real manager approach would, of course, always be the most successful approach.
As the shakedown and the pragmatic styles tend to dominate the profession, the chances of seeing a positive change in organizations seem far-fetched. Mentioning the charade from the pragmatic leaders is a significant issue with this challenge. These leaders will paint a different story to executives, councils, and commissions that the actual problem is from the bottom.
Without a significant event, these leaders will continue cultivating the next generation of shakedown and pragmatic leaders. Only a few real leaders may attain a promotion. Pragmatic leaders will consider them a threat. Therefore they will be ostracized and excluded from many organizational processes. Regardless of these leaders' abilities to serve as a real leader, be genuinely concerned for the agency and its employees, and hold all to the same standards, the bending, twisting, and editing of the rules for personal gain will continue. Its continuance will continue to hold the agency back from meeting the transparency requirements needed to foster the community's and subordinates' complete trust.
Very well stated, sir. I continue to hope every day for our profession that real leaders will step up to the plate for those promotions and that eventually will outnumber the shakedown and pragmatic ones. Morals in leadership will eventually win.
I see both the shakedown and pragmatic mangers as styles we need to strive towards leaving in the past. The more real managers we can promote or create, the better our organizations will become. I can think of people I have worked for who fit into both shakedown and pragmatic styles, and view them as people I did not enjoy working for. Just because someone is promoted or wants to be promoted does not mean they need to be harmful to those below them.
Matthew
I agree we need to promote real managers, but the challenge in our profession is who gets to teach the people how to be a cop has a huge influence on the entire career. Real managers start on day one by being taught the job is not an us against them. This job should be promoted as us for them.
In most departments the old days were filled with Pragmatic leaders. These guys rode their time out not making many waves but still loyal to the department head only for a position. Even when this leader was identified not was done to change things which continued the cycle.
When we discuss leaders, I am hesitant to use the word leader when applied to either shakedown or pragmatic. Both are more concerned with there own self interests then the advancement of their people. I do not consider these people to be leaders in any capacity. A leader will never place their own self interests above the welfare of their people.
I agree. I feel that labeling them as managers is more appropriate. They are there to make decisions, however if they don't work towards the real manager styles they will never earn the trust and respect of those they are suppose to be leading.
Indeed, there is a difference between a leader and a manager. Just because you are in charge, the boss, or whatever title you want to say, doesn’t mean you’re a leader if you are only concerned about yourself. Those that utilize the Shakedown or Pragmatic Bureaucrat Styles have no business taking on a position that supervises others in a public safety capacity.
While the last module touched on the topics of shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucrat style, this module did an excellent job in defining both and explaining the differences between the two styles of management. Neither style is ideal or should be acceptable in a organization.
I guess it goes with saying that the "Shakedown/Machivellian style of leadership is possibly the worst way to be viewed as a leadership. By stepping on others to get to your goal you will find yourself extremely lonely...and maybe that is okay for some. There is really no room from this type of individual in our ranks. They are like a cancer. These type of people are the ones that aren't invited to their own retirement party.
It was a lonely life indeed for one shakedown type that I knew. He had a couple cronies that were birds of the same feather, but stuck to himself for most of his career. No one had respect for him, or his rank, and very few appreciated the way he spoke towards staff. He was able to make it to retirement, and decided to keep his department cell phone number (thinking that people would want to stay in touch with him). He was mistaken, and frequently wonders why no one calls him.
I think the question becomes how do we design a promotional process with in our departments that seeks out and finds the real manager. Any promotional process related to interview and testing has a weakness when it comes to weeding out the Machiavellian or Pragmatic Bureaucrat Style Candidates. Even peer review processes have flaws and can be seen as popularity contests. I think it can be simply assessed that people who have psychopathic type psychologies with be drawn to positions of power. Their goal is authority. Makes you really question why we keep putting people of the Machiavellian or Pragmatic Bureaucrat style in power? I think the answer to promotion comes down to training and molding leaders early in their career and then hand picking them for positions of authority. While I like a testing or interview process better than seniority there is no easy answer to finding the Real Manager.
I found the 4 types of officers to be interesting and would have enjoyed more information related to this area. The pragmatic and shakedown style leadership style seem similar with the pragmatic being more shady. These leaders do exist and usually staff see through them quickly and do there best to avoid. I am often times perplexed why upper management doesn't seem to figure this type of issue out.
The shakedown style is the old way of doing the job of a manager. Leadership is a new way, a better way. We have to balance the interests of our organization, our peers, our supervisors, our followers, and the community all at the same time. If we focus only upward on the ladder, that may get us ahead with our supervisors. If we focus up and down the ladder we bring a better balance to our leadership role. We owe it to everyone to try the best we can as leaders and be authentic.
We must strive to be more of the manager style leader. We must balance care for subordinates, with effective public service, fiscal responsibility, and maitenance of public trust.
We have to understand our people, what makes them tick. We have to understand human nature and care for all people. Then we're more effective.
I agree, the real manager is what we all strive for and who we want to work for. The pragmatics and shakedowns should be avoided and hopefully they will be discovered and replaced.
I have always wondered how "bad" supervisors get promoted. The ladder principle types. The lowest of rungs might not "matter" but they still have a voice. Cops talk. A lot. Word gets around pretty quickly if a supervisor is a ladder principle type. You would also think that the powers that be would eventually find this out. so why promote "that guy"?
I came to the realization that often times the "powers that be" are so far removed from the reality of life for the entry level people that they don't know. Usually they don't care and as long as the "bad" supervisor can make things run smoothly. I've also seen that many higher ups like to have their butts kissed. They know exactly what type of supervisor this person is and they are ok with it.
It is said and true when the article talked about how law enforcement attracts narcists and psychopaths.
Frankly, I think it's because they align themselves in such a way that is appealing to those who are already in power, possibly cut from the same cloth. If we do things for our uppers to make them look good, that is oftentimes rewarded through promotion or special assignment. We'll just call it hind end smooching.
Could you please explain with further references your statement that law enforcement attracts psychopaths. I have attached the definition below.
"a person having an egocentric and antisocial personality marked by a lack of remorse for one's actions, an absence of empathy for others, and often criminal tendencies"
This module helped me better understand the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucratic styles. Unfortunately, I have experienced these styles of leadership. They are focused on their personal agenda and is hostile to anything that stands in the way of accomplishing their goal. These styles of managing create a toxic environment that negatively impact employees as well as the organization.
I agree. I too have worked for supervisors that were all about themselves. About taking all the, "Glory," for whatever work their subordinates do, when it's good and then throwing you under the bus when it's not up to standard. It does create an unhealthy work environment.
Narcissistic managers are terrible to have. Those who will step on your head to gain height in their own career. I have seen this too and it helps me focus on what I never want to become. We will fail but I think our followers see us and what we're trying to accomplish. They will be more forgiving of our errors if we're authentic.
Well, I just have to say I’m glad I work where I do. Very few get promoted anymore if they’re not known for being a team player. And even fewer that trampled others to try and get to the top. There have been a few promotions in the twenty years I’ve been there that were believed to be part of the good ole boy system. After reading all the above posts, I’m glad I don’t work for a large agency if it is really that bad (we are hiring btw for anyone looking for something better). Of the two types though, I would rather have the one that would stab you in the front rather than stab you in the back. At least then you knew what to expect if you saw him/her coming versus the one that was stealing lunch money behind their backs.
We learned about three types of ladder leaders; shakedown, pragmatic bureaucrat, and real managers. Shakedown leaders are opposite to what a law enforcement agency wants and need as a leader. Each leadership styles gives us the understanding of how leaders exercise power and authority. It explains the importance of subordinates when it comes to police managers and the chain of command. It is important that we familiarize ourselves with these leadership styles and know that they can overall tarnish morale in a department. Shakedown and Pragmatic leaders can be seen as selfish leaders. Selfishness is never a positive character trait in any leadership role. Nonetheless, there is a positive leader out of the ladder principle known as Real Mangers. Real managers are credible, authentic, ethical, and have an understanding of human nature. Think about these three leadership styles and ask yourself where do you fall in line as a police manager?
I have been fortunate to work with supervisors who reflect the real manager style. In our department, the Chief places a great deal of time and money on developing and training our leaders. My hope is that in doing so, people are more cognizant of their leadership style and as a result we have created more with real manager skills.
Helping form tomorrow's leaders is an essential element to real management. If we attempt to make others shine and get ahead, this says a lot about us as leaders and that we're not intimidated by others' successes. Check the egos at the door.
Real managers seem to be the most pleasant to work for. Not everyone has the wisdom, maturity, compassion, understanding or fortitude to be able to be "real managers".
The real manager style is one to work towards- A leader who balances care for subordinates with efficient public service, fiscal responsibility and maintenance of public trust, through their credibility morality and authenticity, they understand human nature. Avoiding pragmatic and shakedown styles is key.
I agree. The pitfalls that we all fall into is that shakedown style is the easy path to take to get something done right away so it it done more often than others
I particularly enjoyed Dr. Long speaking about the manipulative nature of the "Shake Down" leader. I have personally seen individuals within my organization observe their superiors then contrive performance based upon what they believe that supervisors wants/needs. This sometimes works, but leadership is sometimes able to see through the manipulation and thwart that individual's advancement.
Your right that sometimes leadership can see through the manipulation, I think what is really important is that many times peers have already seen through the manipulation. This is where a peer review process comes in handy as long as it does not become a popularity contest.
How we exercise power ( or the ways we should avoid doing it) is the main point of the presentation. lets face it, the ladder principle is alive and well in many police organizations. Simply put, the ladder principle dictates that those on the higher rungs of the promotional ladder control the climber (aspiring leader), and those below the climber are inconsequential. Dr. Long mentions that the "Good" and the "Wise" officer tends to be higher in administration. While police departments may be trending this way, my experience has been that the ladder system only serves to amplify the negative effects of the Machiavellian personality types that tend to inhabit the higher levels of the ladder. I think the different styles described by Dr. Long are interesting. I think we have all known a leader in our careers that employed the "Shakedown or the "Bureaucratic " management style. The Shakedown may start innocently enough as the line officer working the street learns how and when to exercise authority, but when applied later as the officer moves up in rank, it can be detrimental. If the "carrot and the stick" worked on the street it is natural to think it should work as a management style. The Bureaucratic style is more nuanced. Here, the leader still cares about what the higher ups think, but it all comes down to thinking about themselves first. Sadly, these managers make a show of caring about people only when it benefits them. I think Dr. Long hit it on the head when he said, both of these negative management styles are rarely if ever addressed by "Good" and "Wise" leaders at the top levels of the organization.
This module had some very deep insights into why people behave a certain way. Dr. Long pointed out how the negative aspects of this line of work combined with a para-military organizational structure and certain personality characteristics form a perfect storm in which shakedown and bureaucratic leadership styles are allowed develop and persist. He also described how to recognize behavior patterns and personality characteristics to form a better understanding of each leadership style. The three managerial styles also explain exactly what happens when leaders uphold organizational values and when they don’t. For me, this module really emphasizes the importance of credibility and authenticity in leadership.
Yes, it helped me understand a little more into how almost natural the officer may take the authoritarian style with them when they move into management.
After reviewing this module, I almost think we owe it to ourselves, our departments and our newly promoted staff to receive this training as well. I think almost anyone can look around their own agency and see most if not all new leaders, leading by either the Shakedown or Pragmatic Bureaucrat style of leadership. I think this comes from being young, most likely not knowing any better and conducting leadership the same way you have learned from one or more past supervisors. I think it also has to do with them wanting to "protect themselves or their position" and let people know who is in charge and accepting their place on the "ladder."
I agree that the reason that some leaders use a shakedown style of leadership is that they've learned that it works based on their contacts with the public. We make decisions in law enforcement, and in really any organization because our decisions have worked in the past. We don't make changes because the outcome was successful. Now we are learning that just because a decision that an officer made led to a successful outcome, there are better ways to do things. We are taking the time to train officers to recognize and make decisions after thinking through the best possible outcome rather than simply what has worked in the past. Thankfully, when it comes to leadership, law enforcement organizations are recognizing that additional leadership training is required in order to make effective leaders and thankfully we're receiving it.
Agree with your thoughts Paul on why some choose to use the Shakedown style of leadership, Unfortunately we have learned that in this day and age that type of leadership is not acceptable or tolerated. We need to do better and be better for both the public and organization otherwise we will never start moving forward.
I agree with Sgt. Lee and Sgt. Gronholz, good leader development is key to eradicating these negative management styles. It is also time senior department administrators to make it clear that these approaches will not be tolerated. Sadly, since Machiavellian personality types still seem to haunt the upper echelons of many agencies, these changes cannot happen until there is a substantial change of command. Organizations and our profession in general can't wait.. It goes back to the module on adaptability.. you either adapt and change or your out of a job.
This learning lesson was interesting. As they mentioned the three managerial styles as shakedown, pragmatic bureaucrat and real manger. Although I do feel the pragmatic style and the shakedown style are very similar and they are more managers rather than actual leaders.
In this lesson they shared the four seminal typologies as the wise officer, real officer, good officer and ladder. They barely touched on this subject.
I agree, Samantha. I would have liked to have heard more on the subject of the pragmatic leader. I think the shakedown leadership method was the main concentration. I did gain some great insight though.
I agree i gain more from the Real Manager as short as the lesson was i learned that the manager is the caring of all leaders.
I found the 4 seminal typologies very interesting. I would be interesting more development on those typologies. The further explanation of the ladder principle was good as well. We should all hope to be real managers and not fall into the autocratic or pragmatic styles.
I found the the 4 types interesting as well. They really summed up officer types well.
This module touched on 4 types of officers but didn't go into much detail on each of them. More info on those would be beneficial as I think I understand them but definitely have some questions. The module also spoke of 3 leadership styles. The Shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucrat seem very similar to me. Maybe I misunderstood but both seem very focused on their own improvement, the pragmatic bureaucrat just seemed to be able to hide it a bit better. I have had supervisors that are definitely the shakedown style as well as some I would put in the pragmatic category. The pragmatic ones seem to care about their employees at first but the employees typically can see through the charade.
The greatest challenge of the pragmatic bureaucrat is their style is contagious. Within specific organizations, one can see how the shakedown manager's shift changes with these people's growth. The group of "old School" fire and brimstone leaders that, by default, by lasting longer than others get promoted, and their style tends to morph into the pragmatic style. In a sense, proximity to the top, seeing from administration concerns over toxic, undue workplace hardships that cause them to see they need to tone down their outward authoritarian behavior. From the higher level, they can promote and use subordinates as the hammers, as the new generation of shakedown leaders.
Nevertheless, they pretend to care for those within the formation. As the underlings get promoted, the culture or club of individuals that care for each other, accepting one's problematic or illegal behavior, creates a wedge between the command and the subordinates. The interesting point is the behavior is observable from below, yet these pragmatic and problematic leaders feel their actions are invisible to others. Out of fear and intimidation, many capitulate to the behavior and, over time, mimic the same traits. The more leaders cross the ethical and moral line, the easier it gets.
This module touched on 3 different leadership styles and their traits. My interpretation of the shakedown style leader is one who cannot differentiate when he/she is interacting with suspects/interrogations on the street and the officers that he/she is supposed to lead. The pragmatic leader seems to use his/her officers as a tool when needed but otherwise does not show care or concern. I am hoping that future modules touch on the 4 seminal typologies more and go into greater detail, i found this portion of the module interesting .
This was an interesting module. This was pointed out in some of the other discussions in regards to the 4 seminal typologies.
Up to this point, I have certainly seen them but did not connect the dots. We certainly have a mixture of the 4 here at RPD.
Connecting the dots is definitely the beginning of understanding and your description makes sense to me. Knowledge is power as some would say, therefore developing our leadership skills and expanding our knowledge of what good leadership it is, and what it is not, should be a priority for us if we want to do things right.
Sadly I would suspect that we all see a combination of the four in almost every agency. I enjoyed the breakdowns in this module as well.
This module talked about the three different types of leaders, both the Shakedown Style and Pragmatic leader appear to mainly be concerned with what is best for them, not necessarily the organization or anyone else in it. These styles of leaders cater to those above them as they feel those are the only people whom can derail their career. It appears that law enforcement ranks are filled with these types of leaders. Through awareness and diligent promotional processes, I believe these leadership styled individuals could be filtered out, allowing authentic leaders to emerge.
In this module, the real manager really stood out to me. While l have seen the Pragmatic and Bureaucrat Style have been proven to be successful, the real manager is superior. Careful consideration has to be taken when considering candidates for leadership and promotional positions. The best way to predict behavior is to look at past behavior. If these candidates were hard asses that didn’t care for the public, they will most likely do the same to their troops. The ladder leadership individuals will shakedown their people to achieve results by using power and authority. They are the future traitors of the next rank as well. No matter the rank or position these individuals will step on anyone for personal gain and advancement.
I agree, careful consideration is the key when evaluating future leaders. I think you bring up a good point that the only predictor of future behavior is past behavior. This should be taken into consideration with promotional opportunities and lists are created. How do we gauge that x factor, the factor that tells us "while this person looks good on paper there isn't something quite right about their ability to lead." I hope future modules touch on this
I liked the discussion of the four seminal typologies of Officers (Wise, Real, Good, and Cautious) and where certain personnel/levels in the organization tend to be. I found it interesting to take the three managerial styles described and see how they fit people within my organization in the past and present. This type of instruction is important because I think this material has a real chance of changing those who were or are more focused on their own career development to see the "error of their ways" and start behaving like real managers. With my agency investing in sending so many staff through the program (both from our Law Enforcement and Detention Divisions) I am encouraged to think where the future will lead .
I agree Sgt, I too am encouraged and excited to see where this education will lead our organization in the future. You are correct, hopefully the information from these courses will help all of us improve our leadership styles.
It is interesting to go over the different styles in this module and the one previous in looking at how promotions occur within agencies. I have noticed the characteristics that define each of these but didn't necessarily know the terms for each one. Within our organization, we have a combination of these individuals. What I have mostly recognized or have been alerted to during our promotional processes is the "backstabbing" mentality where those in the application pools will look to undermine those competing for the same positions. They are not really interested in bringing others along with them it is more about themselves. Once promoted I think we see a combination of all three. Of course, we are always trying to achieve a real manager style. For some, that takes a lot of work and reassurance from me that each managerial position is safe as long as each supervisor is trying to adhere to the mission and vision of the organization. I have tried to get rid of the shakedown and pragmatic by taking away the competition once our supervisors make it to the Sergeant level. After Sergeant, our promotions are not competed for in an interview process we look at performance and alignment with mission and vision in making our decision. In addition, we talk to the peers they supervise to look for the real manager style of leadership in our pick.
Interesting approach to promotions at the second line supervisor level and above. I think its important to evaluate feedback from peers (while taking things with a grain of salt due to potential back stabbing).
Some years ago, our agency had all employees fill out surveys on the direct supervisor. It only happened once. I think some feelings got hurt and glaring short comings were brought to light.
Module #10 went into greater detail about the 3 distinct managerial styles with emphasis on the Shakedown Style and the Pragmatic Bureaucrat Style. Thinking about what is best for yourself and disregarding others was the common theme between the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat styles. This module reinforced to me the importance of having the right leaders in those supervisory positions. I can see how people would be discouraged to work for someone with a shakedown or pragmatic bureaucrat style.
I agree with you, this module also reinforced to me the importance of having the right leaders in those supervisory positions.
In the module, Ladder Leadership, Long discussed the Ladder Principle and different managerial styles utilized by law enforcement agencies. While reviewing the Shakedown and Pragmatic Bureaucrat leadership styles, it's disheartening that these styles exist in our profession with the amount of integrity and trust that is expected of us. Both of these styles discussed how these managers focused on themselves first in order to utilize their power for promotional and individual gain. Luckily in our agency, neither of these managerial styles exist. However, I had experienced these styles in my previous employment which reflected behaviors and attitudes of the employees with a decline of positive morale.
I think you said it well that it is disheartening these styles exist in our profession. It's important to have the mindset that we need to bring others up the ladder with us. Only worrying about oneself is no way to lead people.
I agree with your comments. In leading this way we begin to lose trust amongst our employees. Once employees understand that their supervisors carry these characteristics I believe that is where we start to see morale dip, public encounters become a concern, and the mission and vision of the organization will become lost.
It seems to me that promotional opportunities were given to more individuals with these styles. I have seen great leaders that care for their people. They possess the outmost integrity and are by nature great people. They are still around but are becoming extinct. It is our job as current leaders to foster the real manager style to build future leaders.
I agree. I think a good step in the promotional process would be to obtain honest feedback from the applicants team. Just because someone tests well, does not mean they are good leaders.
Like many others in the group, I have observed all three of these management styles over the years. Sadly enough, I have also observed many young leaders imitate the Shakedown and Pragmatic Beaureacrat styles of leadership. It was learned behavior; the way their supervisor led was how they thought they had to once they became a supervisor themselves. Thankfully, through leadership training courses such as this one, most officers now realize that these leadership styles are self-serving and are not conducive to a sustainable work environment. We can finally break the cycle and create a culture to "weed out" these negative leadership styles.
Marlon Shuff
I couldn't agree with you more, as I too have seen many new supervisors try and follow the same path as their Shakedown or Pragmatic Bureaucrat predecessors. I made a similar comment in my post before reading and commenting on this one, specifically that this type of training is exactly what is needed for our agencies to break the cycle.
Throughout my career, I have been exposed to Shakedown style leaders and Pragmatic Bureaucrats. Those people only cared about themselves. Thankfully, I have seen that style start to fade, but the "suck ups" are still around. I hope that as we work on our leadership styles to more effective leaders, the number of ineffective leaders will diminish.
After viewing this module on ladder leadership I understand these three managerial styles are used by leaders in law enforcement agencies around the world. I believe the pragmatic style and the shakedown style are both ineffective and negative. I haven’t worked with a supervisor that utilized this leadership style and I obviously benefitted from that. I would have a very difficult time working for someone that practiced either style of management.
Jessica, consider yourself fortunate that you haven't had any supervisors who subscribed to those styles of leadership. Unfortunately, I have. They certainly make you appreciate the Real Management style a lot more.
I have worked for shakedown and pragmatic leaders. They were dreadful leaders, and the morale of my peers was below the standards. Those leaders were lacking leadership skills and were not competent too lead. When they were promoted as supervisors they gravitate to the shakedown. Their line of thinking was” I have authority and you will do what I say”. The agency at that time did not seem to have any trainings for leadership and were promoting people just to fill up a spot.
I have also unfortunately worked under dreadful leaders that wore down on the organization to the point morale was extremely low and leadership was next to nothing. It was very much the "Do what I say, not as I do" leadership. This was an awful time as we seen a mass exodus and staff was leaving left and right. This made it so the deputies who stayed had to work lots of overtime while the leadership did nothing to change it.
Many of the comment here reflect on past supervisors and how they were either a shakedown or pragmatic. As like many here, I too worked under these types of people. I can say, as well, after some self-reflection, I am sure at one time or another I was pragmatic when I was a Corporal. I never had a name for it, but I hated it when I was doing it. Age and wisdom have made that a long and distant bad memory but the reality is we all have to seek growing in who we are and who we want to be.
I agree, I believe that with time, age, and wisdom we should all grow to become better and who we want to be.
I definitely agree. I too have fit into the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucratic leader styles. I am thankful for additional the additional training we've received on how to be real managers.
Throughout my career I had the shakedown leadership style supervisor that used fear to keep someone from interfering with their goal of rising, perhaps to the top if possible. Because of this type of leadership, officers below these type of leaders fear speaking out against them fearing he/she may want to get even and may cause waves, interfering with his/her career plan.
It was hard not to think about many of the different leaders that I have had throughout my career as I listened and took notes throughout this module. So many times, I have had the Shakedown Style and/or Pragmatic Bureaucratic Style of supervisors that were more managers than leaders. The "Good 'Ol Boy" system of politics were played and the intended outcome resulted. Or in other words, "deference was paid" as the instructor stated. Clearly, these leadership styles have long been outmoded and counterproductive. Real leaders do not rely upon fear tactics or "paying homage" to those above only, again as the instructor declared. Let us make sure that we also do not fall prey to these dreadful and hurtful means to an end!
Well I can say that I certainly misunderstood a phrase from the last module. I had looked at this article after module 9, literally minute before starting this. I really do not know what to say, except that overall I have been lucky in the leaders, managers and supervisors that I have had. There have been the one that fir the pragmatic and Machiavellian, but overall I have had more good than bad.
Depending on when you enter law enforcement, many of the good leaders that I have had exhibited traits of the Machiavellian and the pragmatic. I think that leadership has a spectrum and some traits may cross those lines. I had a watch commander that set down the rules for his watch, in writing. If you followed these rules, then everything was cheery and rosy, if not, you hated life.
I did have one Lt. that you had to develop defense mechanisms to deal with him on a daily basis. The only leadership training that he had, was from the Marine Corps, during the Vietnam War. He looked at everything as combat. To be honest, while he was a it overbearing and did eventually promote to captain, he was not concerned with it, except that to him it was a sign of competence. Once promoted, he told me he wish that he had not taken the job.. He said he missed the arguing with the guys and just the camaraderie.
While listening to this module and the Ladder Principle description and the leadership styles, I noted several supervisors throughout my career that applied to these principles. Most of my career, the style of leadership that I worked for, has been the Shakedown Style and Pragmatic Bureaucrat. This seems to be the style that fits the "good ol boy" style of leadership. Luckily I now work for a leader who personifies the Real Manager Style, and it has made a massive difference in my career and others in our division.
As I said , in my post, I am lucky in the leaders that I have had. I have a great leader that follows these principles, but I had a few that made me want to quit. I had a chief that almost ended my career, because I was going to quit and never do tis work again. I was asked by someone to give it six more months, which I did and everything changed.
This training module made me reflect back on some of the different types of supervisors I have worked for in the past. One of those supervisors stood out among all the others. When this person was around, we had a highly politicized culture and everyone was expected to "stay in their lanes" and do what they were told. When I first started at my agency I had heard rumors about this person and how they ran the organization. I was never exposed to it as a new deputy, but when I got promoted to Sgt, I saw it first hand. This person wasn't interested in anything I wanted to accomplish as a supervisor, and didn't care to know anything else about me. After the promotion "photo op" ceremony, this person looked at me and said "Congratulations, and remember, your not doing your job right unless they (the deputies on my shift) hate you". I was in complete shock, and didn't know what to say. I thought he was joking, but I could clearly see, he was serious. That's how he operated as a very high ranking supervisor. He kept everyone looking over their shoulders by causing constant paranoia and fear. He encouraged everyone to report anything we heard or saw someone doing to him personally. He rewarded those who played his games and punished those who spoke out or didn't play by his rules. It was the craziest thing I had ever witnessed in my life. You couldn't write a movie script that contained the amount, or level of creativity that this person had when it came to manipulating, punishing and controlling the entire staff at our agency.
This module does well to show what type of manager/supervisor styles exist in the LEO agencies we experience or in private service as well. People who use their step "on the ladder" to not oversee or misuse those up and/or down make better leaders overall. It shows that the "iron fist" class/style usually does not bode well for longevity in this modern policing world. When we can help and/or improve those we work with, real managers outlast and outshine "down looking" personnel every time.
I agree this type of leadership style is not anything I would want to see in the future of my agency. I am not saying it isn’t used by some supervisors within my agency but I have not been subjected to it. I believe with the leadership training we receive a most supervisors stay clear of this way of leading.
Having Shakedown and Pragmatic leaders in to many positions of authority can ruin an organization. Throughout my career I have had to work for and deal with these types of leader. Everyone who works for them is miserable and it is reflected in their work, attitudes, and their interactions with the public and even themselves. It's encouraging that agencies are beginning to see that leadership training is imperative not just for supervisors but for all officers.
i believe that when people are first promoted to a position of authority they will tend to gravitate to the shakedown because i am the authority and you must do as i say. This is definitely if their agency doesn't have some type of leadership training. They don't know any better but do know that they have authority over subordinates, and that is all they know. It will take time for them to hopefully understand that is not the correct way to lead.
Every department has all of these types of personalities and leaders. It would be wonderful if more agencies especially the larger ones would dedicate more resources to developing the officers into Real Leaders. Real Leaders really manage up and down their chain of command and understand the importance of both.
i see more of the ladder principle being utilized in civil service departments. With that being said I have worked for two different sheriff's offices in my 19 year career and have seen leadership in all styles of this module and the harmful affects of poor leadership. Leadership is a skill that most agencies do not spend enought training on and it has negative affecrts on the agency
I agree. Leadership development at all levels needs to be key. I also think it is important to talk to a supervisor's subordinates to truly understand how they are doing.
I feel the shake down and pragmatic styles are here to stay for sometime. Its too hardwired into our culture. It would take a new strong leadership and training to end these to leadership styles.
The module elaborated on the "Ladder Principle." It made me think about leaders within our agency who uses the shakedown or pragmatic bureaucrat styles. When these styles are used, the culture suffers.
I agree and its not even hidden, these styles are carried out in plain view.
You're exactly right that the culture suffers. Along with the attitudes and behaviors of those who are affected by negative leadership. This module really provided insight of negative managerial styles which we can reflect on as our careers develop. Sometimes, ignorance and self-gain takes precedence over authenticity, which then creates negative power and poor morale.
Learning more in depth about the Ladder Principle, Shakedown Style, Pragmatic Bureaucrat, and the Real Manager leadership styles made me reflect on others I have worked for. One particular person who actually say out loud that the ends justified the means, intentionally quoting Machiavelli. He would talk to me and our peers like we just committed a crime, it often felt like an interrogation. This continued until we stopped reinforcing his behavior; we no longer responded to his questions. We collectively decided to stop answering his questions when he behaved in this manner and would point out his behavior to him. At one point, we also pointed it out to his Major, who sent a clear message that he wasn't going to tolerate that kind of treatment.
Years later, our agency began instituting a Credible Leadership Program which may have helped him change some of his behaviors, coupled with the strong stance from us and our Leaders. Now, I think he makes a conscious effort to self-manage and use his emotional intelligence to approach things differently. I am proud of him for identifying his problem, and taking steps towards changing his behavior. In the end, the person has internalize the goal in order for change to truly be effective.
I have worked for all three styles of leaders in the past. The shakedown style, the pragmatic bureaucrat style, and the real manager style. I met with a lot of frustration when dealing with the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat style. When dealing with those types of leaders, it was infuriating to see them change when someone of a higher rank walked into the room.
Devin:
I agree that it is infuriating to see people change to save face and try to impress their supervisors when, as their subordinates, we see how self-serving they can be. They put on a good show for their bosses but in reality they only have their own interest at heart, not ours, not our agency's.
Hopefully, by educating people on effective leadership styles and interpersonal relations, we can help develop our supervisors to be more authentic leaders.
Is is hard to watch but many felt like that was where their only options were. Explaining these premises goes along way in ending these cycles. It also helps weed out the bad from the good, as many bad leaders will not be told how ineffective they are.
I agree I don't like it when leaders only care about themselves and the ones above them. I feel a leader must show subordinates that they matter.
Looking back over the years, I can see how I have used each style in my leadership. It seems that when you have to train yourself, you will take these steps in order. Also, I enjoyed the definitions of different types of officers, and have one that should be added to the list. I will use this in the future as a motivational growth skill for my team. Would like them to self identify and also, their goal of who they would like to be.
So many times, we see the Pragmatic Leadership style, and we do not even know that it is occurring. We watch our leadership just coast day to day, not wanting to deal with any issues that may arise. Until reviewing this chapter, I was unaware of how much leaders can coast and let everyone fend for themselves.
As leaders, we need to make sure that we do not coast, but lead with intention, and lift others with us in our leadership.
I agree this level of supervisor is busy doing his or her own job tasks, has concern for further promotion and those above. They rarely have the time to get to know the people that work for them.
Both shakedown and pragmatic leadership styles can cause bad culture within the organization and ruin the development of future leaders. this typestyle can also cause a communication breakdown.
Shakedown and Pragmatic Bureaucrat style leaders can ruin an organization. They look out for themselves and for the next way they can be promoted. They don't care about what happens to the people under them and are not interested in building them up to be the next leaders of the organization. It is impossible to build teams and goals under these types of leaders.
I have seen many different types of leadership styles in my career. I can recall it used to be the attitude, "Don't show them everything you know, because they will take your spot or won't need you anymore." There were a couple of times I went to supervisors for help, and I was told to figure it out on your own. There are still a few of these supervisors that are toxic in the department, but they are fading out as they retire. I have noticed a vast improvement in leadership styles and positive impacts on the work culture.
I have also seen all types of leadership in my career. I am seeing less of the bureaucratic style of leader and hopefully this trend will continue. I have seen a trend that more law enforcement agencies realize they need real managers.
This lecture is almost a verbatim review of the article published on Law Enforcement Today and I was happy to listen to it after reading the article earlier. The negative implications that leaders who utilize the shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat style can cripple the future leaders of our departments and create an environment of every man for themselves. In our profession a great deal of our work rest on effective teamwork. When a leader does not care for their subordinates it is next to impossible to have an effective team behind him.
True, and also for teams to work together. This can be division in an organization that hampers productive results and public trust.
This was a short lecture, but really hit some key points. The thing that stood out to me was I have been seeing pragmatic bureaucrat and shakedown leaders for several years and didn't seem to realize it. These types of leaders can be toxic and should be a concern for agencies to fix the problem, before poisoning an entire division or agency.
I agree that most of us have been lead and subjected to this type of leadership in our agencies. What is a little disturbing to me is I can think of a few new subordinate leaders who may still fall into these categories and will have to attempt to lead them out of it.
Regardless of the agency type, size, location, etc., these styles of "leaders" exist everywhere. Looking back at some of the ranking officers, I have either been around or with directly for, I am happy to say that I have had the fortunate relationships with those officers who many considered to be a cop's cop. They were regarded as true brothers and sisters and took care of their people. They also warned of these styles of leaders and who to be careful around. These styles of leaders are what lead people to leave bad bosses, not bad companies.
I agree Darren, there are a few left today. Fortunately for us we have had some good leaders along the way.
These types of leaders were definitely prevalent throughout my early career in law enforcement. We still have a few but it has diminished quite a bit. I am guessing that is because back in the day I don't recall going through any leadership training but know it is much more common to be sent to leadership courses. Unfortunately, I don't believe that it will ever go away because some people are only in it for themselves.
I agree, I believe, "It was always done this way; this is the way you have to do it attitude." I know back when I started my career, there was no leadership courses offered for training purposes. I think the old school mentality caught up to a lot of agencies with lawsuits or high turnover rates.
Frank, you and I probably know a lot of the same people you are referring to. I agree with you that there will probably be these types of leaders in our profession forever but we can hope that there are more of us than them and the harm they cause is overshadowed by the rest of us.
I worked the first half of my career for shakedown leaders and it really makes a subordinates life hard. They get to learn valuable lessons they should be taught. That was the culture of the department I worked for then and as far as I know there is still an abundance of shakedown leaders to this day. They also have an extraordinary turnover rate.
My agency was the same way when I started my career. It has since improved in the recent years. There are still a few in the lower ranks but they can be helped and led the right way. I believe their actions are the way they are due to being taught that way by past leaders.
It is so good knowing that these problem leadership characteristics are being identified. There is no room for Shakedown and Pragmatic Leadership in police departments. This causes a lack of trust within the department that is now carried onto the streets from subordinates, thus causing tension with the community we are trying to gain trust from. The scary thing is the lecture states that Psychopathic Personality traits are to be more commonly found in police work than you might see elsewhere. I think we as leaders now need to do our part in educating ourselves as well as subordinates in a proper and better way to lead.
I agree there is no room in an agency for a supervisor to use a Shakedown or Pragmatic leadership style. I believe, as you mentioned, that when these types of behaviors are present, it can cause “subordinate(s)” to become dissatisfied, which can carry over into their job assignments.
It will cause goof officers to leave bad supervisors, not bad departments.
I agree this is how many work organizations are destroyed.
It seems an easy trap for an officer to fall into and bring the way he learns to get results on the street to how to get results in the office. I have seen this time and again. caring for the development of those under your trust needs to be hammered into every person we mentor. Educating future leaders on the pitfalls of career building on the backs of others is essential. Two and tree day schools on leadership has been the norm within my agency. Topics such as these are breezed over. Advocating for more substantial leadership development is required.
Shakedown style of leadership will always be around. Unfortunately, there are people who will do anything to get to the top of their organization. These types of people often climb the ladder very quick. It makes you wonder why upper management can’t see what everyone else can see when it comes to these types of leaders.
I would guess that this is true for every organization. It is both disheartening and discouraging...for everyone. As one instructor previously noted, "Everyone knows what the problems are, and they are waiting to see what you do about them". However, as discouraging as this is, it is exciting that we are each in positions to be the change agents of our agencies. We can make the difference now and in the future and move past these unfortunate past follies of those before.
I found the portion of the description of the Shakedown style to be extremely interesting and thought provoking, especially when Dr. Long cited the police managers are promoted due to psychopathic tendencies. Never had I dared to connect dots to that degree. It was also interesting when he spoke of the budgeting as being a point of contention when concentrating on the Pragmatic Bureaucrat. There were many times in my career, especially when I was a new sergeant, I was told by my supervisors, that I was expected to give hours to the agency if I was to be a good supervisor. It was really disconcerting but I now see this was one of the small things on which they had control in order to make themselves look better by making certain we were “in budget”. It’s a relief that these ideals have changed and the newer command staff does not think as they did once.
we had the same issue in our department at one time where the supervisor would degrade you or look at you like you were crazy if you put in overtime for 30 minutes because you were on a late call. However, that has change and a deputy has no issues turning in overtime for 15 minutes without fear of being ridiculed. Now, of course, it is usually give back in comp time due to budgetary reasons but most deputies seem to be fine with that solution.
Shakedown leadership has been around my entire career, and it seems as though those are the leaders who are promoted. I believe the more we educate ourselves as an agency, the sooner we will move towards the real manager style of leadership.
A common theme in these modules seems to be balance, and this one is no exception. Balancing the goals with the morale and happiness of the officers is a constantly changing target and only an adaptive leader can hit that mark.
You seemed to have hit the nail on the head with that remark. They all point to us being able to be able to see the necessity to make certain our officers are well cared and when they are, they will be more apt and will to make certain the goals of the agency are met.
I found the indepth review of Machiavellian style leadership to be eye opening. The theory of shakedown style being engrained because of the culture and real world tactics of front level enforcement gives insight as to how this style evolves and why it seems to resurface in law enforcement leadership. I have seen the pragmamatic style also appear prevalent. As I have risen in rank and become involved in more administrative concerns such as budgets the example given of cutting overtime really hit home. It is not uncommon in our area to see Senior Staff level rank to actually be a salaried employee who does not get overtime. The salary is significantly higher to justify their extended hours, but also giving them the authoritiative excuse they have to work extra and don't even get paid for it. I can remember when I was applying for a rank position a friend who was at that level told me I needed to learn to NOT be a 40 hour employee. Sometimes you have to work an extra hour here and there, but don't put that on your time sheet. Show you are committed. It is hard to change this mindset because much of the rank on top of the ladder got there with this belief and they expect the same of the new leaders coming up.
I believe that a lot of this mindset comes from law enforcement operating in a para-military fashion and those leadership traits are common in the military.
I will disagree to an extent with you on the leadership traits of shakedown and pragmatic bureaucrat style being common in the military. With the military being at war for so many years they have revamped most of their leadership training from the old cold war days.
I can also remember years ago that we would work several hours over and not be compensated for it. I agree that it was a mindset. It was something that was expected by upper management.
I agree, and for the most part shared many of those hours with you.
In the learning area 3, module 10, I've compared the shakedown style and Pragmatic Bureaucrat style, I've learned that the shakedown style is all based on a power move. I've noticed people within my department who displays that style. When in reality there's nothing wrong with coming with a softer approach and utilize the pragmatic bureaucrat style. To apply a softer touch with your organization for a better understanding.
Police agencies have rewarded those who use the "Shakedown Style" on a regular basis. I have seen it within my own organization. Some people over indulge in the power and authority bestowed upon them by being an officer and that mentality carries over into any higher position they achieve. After taking this module of instruction I believe it is my duty or responsibility to change this style within my own organization. I would rather my organization lead from the role of the Real Manager concept.
I agree that I have seen this in my agency often. I too hope to help lead the change at my agency. With several key leaders completing this training I believe we have a great oppurtunity to change.
This lesson goes into a deeper description of the Machiavellian /Shakedown stile and the pragmatic style than it did in the previous lesson. It was interesting to see how they were different in some ways and the same in other ways.
Fascinating module and it showed me where I need to be with my leadership style.
I’ve seen all three types of styles of “Ladder Leadership”. I’ve seen them in the military and in law enforcement. Having a better understanding of this principle now than from the last lecture, I see that it is still something to avoid minus the “Real Manager” style. Regardless of what label a style is given or what we learn in the future, there are two things to remember; where you came from and taking care of those who are where you were, now. No matter what you do as a leader, subordinates are watching and mimicking. You are developing junior leaders whether you know it or not.
Early in my career the Shakedown Style was quite prevalent in both upper and middle supervisory levels. Fortunately, that generation retired and moved on and a new generation leader has taken over. He adapted because he experienced the same leadership styles. This leader instilled the “we” concept associated with the Real Manager Style, and it is expect of all his supervisory staff. We are only as strong as our weakest link.
I found that the older supervisors at my agency used this style of leadership. We still have some of the new generation that follow the old supervisors style of leadership.
This module reemphasizes the negative leadership of the shakedown and pragmatic supervisor. It puts a label on supervisor's that I've had over the years and who I aspired not to be like. It give me more understanding on who they were and their mindset.
Again, another interesting style for us to be aware of and concerned with. I think that “Pragmatic Bureaucrat” and the “Shakedown Leadership Style” should be immediately addressed for the safety of the organizational members when it becomes visible to us. It saddens me to know that individual(s) will incorporate this practice within an organization, such as law enforcement, considering the other challenges that we endure.
I caught that also where Dr. Long mentioned we see these Pragmatic and Shakedown styles but rarely ever address them. It could be because most of our generation survived those types of leaders and learned from their mistakes. I am not saying avoidance is the proper way to handle them. It’s just a thought.
I agree with you that it is hard to believe that some people would choose these leadership styles, even though I have personally seen them in action. When I saw them, (even though I didn't have a label on them) I made a conscious statement in my head that If I was ever in a position to lead, I would not follow their example. As law enforcement professionals we face enough challenges and must come together as a team and think of each other first.
I have worked with all both the pragmatic and shakedown manager. These supervisors caused low morale and the loss of good subordinates. Luckily they are no longer with the department. Thankfully the department implement leadership classes that everyone has to complete if they want lateral transfers or promotions.
I’ve seen this too. Fortunately we have superiors that are educated leaders and unafraid to learn new things. My superiors are held to a high standard by the sheriff and they hold us to the same standard. Since my sheriff’s standard is held by the community he serves, he understands the need for leadership education which helps avoid those two styles.
Ladder Leadership was in practice when I was first hired on. I have worked for all three managerial styles. Thankfully our agency is trying to create Authentic Leaders and many of the Shakedown and Pragmatic Bureaucrat Styles are retired.
I too have worked for many pragmatic and shakedown type supervisor's over the years. I am glad to have finally been able to put a name to that style of management.
Exactly!!! I remember to vividly the issues and problems these leaders caused within our department throughout the years.
Unfortunately, I have worked under Shakedown and Pragmatic leaders.
Each of them was toxic in different ways and created nothing but low morale in their wake.
Fortunately, our Agency has placed an enormous emphasis on leaving those styles behind and is focused on creating adaptable, caring leaders.
yes it is unfortunate, but you also saw these people in action came to the realization that is not how things are supposed to be.
This module was an extension of the previous module, where it discussed the theory presented by Irwin and Normore on the Ladder Principle in Police Management. As the topics of the shakedown style and pragmatic bureaucrat were discussed, I began to reflect on “leaders” I knew who were pragmatic bureaucrats. They secretly cared about themselves more than their people while acting as though they thought about their people. However, when push came to shove, they would not stand up for their people and, in fact, roll them under the bus just to look good. Leaders need to be aware of these types of supervisors and do everything in their power to curtail their advancement.
I agree David. More people need to speak up so the Shakedown and Pragmatic Bureaucrat's can be identified.
I too have worked with leaders who cared about themselves and how their division looked in the eyes of their superiors. Not caring about their subordinates.
I learned about the different typologies of leadership (wise, real, good and cautious). Individual who are lower in rank will mostly fit in the real or cautious style, while higher ups mostly fit into the good or wise. The shakedown and pragmatic styles of leadership are problematic. As more leaders receive training, I find that the shakedown and pragmatic styles of leadership will diminish with time.
I hope training can help to refocus these types of leaders' mindsets. For this to be successful, the leader needs to buy into the training they're receiving, become self-aware, and do some self-reflection, then make an effort to change.
The Shakedown style I believe has been the way things are done for many years. May not be as prevalent now as it use to be. Not just in law enforcement but in many organizations. It is really sad to think back and see how many leaders were really out for just themselves and not the good of the people they work for. All to get to the top.
It is sad, Laurie.
Fortunately though, our Agency has placed an emphasis on creating adaptive leaders.
The pragmatic bureaucrat style is the one that stands out the most to me. The person that only looks out for themselves and is willing to step on others to get where they want to go. I dislike this type of person, and unfortunately, we all work with one or more of them. Sometimes this person, I feel, is overlooked purposely because their supervisors don’t want to deal with them. This type of person is the wolf in sheep clothing. The unfortunate subordinates who work for this pragmatic style person will realize these characteristics and lose trust in them as a leader.
The "shakedown" style is not very prevalent in my agency, unlike the "pragmatic bureaucrat" style. It's very common to see mid-level managers concerned with others when it benefits them either for recognition or promotion. And if you're good at disguising the pragmatic style, you can unfortunately go far in your career.
The Pragmatic Bureaucrat managerial style is a little softer style than the Shakedown managerial style. I think this type of leadership would be harder to recognize. Even though it might be harder to recognize, it is still detrimental to the employees.
David, I agree both of these styles are problematic.
I agree that they are a little harder to identify because they are the sneaky ones that are playing the game behind closed doors. They give the appearance that they are good for the team but are not at all.
The shakedown managerial style appears to be filled with cynicism and the belief that police work is solely authoritarian. Going up the ladder of success for this supervisor is to the detriment of anyone in their way. The real managerial style of leadership it the most beneficial to the agency and its fellow officers.
Ladder leadership is the style is the style that is in place at my agency. It seems that the pragmatic bureaucratic leaders are still present at my department. Hopefully, with more leadership classes being offered to younger officers ,my department will have more real managers who take care of their subordinates.
I think that most would agree that at a police agency, the ladder leadership is the most common style. It is rare that you come across "real managers" but since my agency has made a commitment to developing leadership, we are starting to see a change. Previously, we have focused on FBI LEEDA and now we are transferring our focus to command college.
Lance it is encouraging to hear that your agency has committed to developing leadership and you are seeing the results. I think more agencies should incorporate this in their environment.
Agreed, this style of movement and progression would likely increase the retention and longevity of people that move agencies based on these highlighted issues. When agencies implement top to bottom positive roles, it makes for a better place to make a career.
In learning of the shakedown style leadership and their authoritarian leader style, it was a, do as I say not what I do. Morale always seemed to be at a low point during those times. As I progressed I seen the more of the bureaucratic style where use of subordinates made you look good and they took all the credit. As a subordinate we seen the real leader they were and it sent a message of low credibility for that person. Most prevalent I see now are the real managers where they promote growth from the subordinates. It’ motivating and brings morale to a new level.
I agree with this statement, as it depicts the old style of police leadership. You didn't question what you were told to do, you just did it. If you didn't like something, you kept it to yourself.
I think my way of leadership is based on life experiences and the leaders that I have been lucky enough to have had throughout my career. I haven't had the shakedown type leader or the pragmatic type that I can recall. I think I would have picked them out pretty quickly. I have seen subordinates that have these traits and I am not a fan. I try to lead them in a way of a real manager so that they one day can lead in that way.
I believe as more leaders become more effective we will be able to eliminate a lot of the "shakedown or pragmatic" leaders.
I agree with your statement. I find our agency, for example, is moving forward by trying to grow leaders with proper training courses. It is fortunate when organizations start the training early in an administrators career to provide them with the tools necessary to do an effective job.
I hope you are right, Monte. I want to think that by becoming more effective leaders, we will be able to extinguish the shakedown and pragmatic leaders and develop more real management/leaders.
I have to believe that the role of law enforcement leaders are changing. There are many bright young eager minds out there that hopefully will get the chance to shine. If we teach them the right way, you may be right and we will rid our agencies of that kind of leader.
In my department, I have worked with and for both the shakedown and pragmatic styles of managers, each leaving somewhat of a trail behind them. It is obvious when you interact with a manager that solely cares about themselves and their next promotion. There is no courage in taking on the status quo as it may jeopardize their next promotion. The lack of empathy and even desire to casually communicate sickens me. I hope the next level of management seeks to diffuse these individuals from continuing a path of destruction.
The "Shakedown Style" of management has been very prominent in the experiences I have had in my career. I have had exposure to only a handful of "Real Managers" and for those, I am truly grateful. I have had some great mentors in my career who have taught me the value of being a "real manager" and have worked to try to integrate these principles into my own style - which is a work in progress. The "Pragmatic Bureaucrat" manager is a common management style as individuals work to manage budgets and adjust to changing resources and missions of organizations.
Nacy, I would agree that the "Shakedown Style" is most prevalent in my agency also. I am hoping with schools like this, positive change to our leadership can come about.
I agree the Shakedown style is most prevalent...however not as much as it used to be. We need more Real Managers in the organizations so that the younger generations do not continue any of these styles.
During my law enforcement career, I have experienced each style of leadership. Early on in my career, all of my supervisors were the shakedown style leader. Later on, I worked with pragmatic style managers. Most of the supervisors I ever worked with were self-servant type leaders that looked out for what was in their best interest. I have only had the pleasure of working with one real manager that genuinely cared about the people that worked for the organization.
Drauzin Kinler,
I think “back in the day” as most called it the authoritarian style of leadership and policing was most prevalent. Now with today’s society changing and access to social media and such things are changing for the better to promote subordinates below and not just look at them as stepping stones to make the next rank. Working with real managers who are genuine is what makes a leader emulate them when they see good results.
Dan
I agree, real managers have the greatest impact on the young officers.
I have never worked at a large agency and fortunately have not had to deal with the Shakedown Style leader. However, I have had to work with a few Pragmatic Bureaucrat types. Fortunately, it seems that both of these are beginning to dwindle in number at the higher levels of today's organizations. I believe that is the result of newer leaders recognizing the 'games' that such leaders play, but more importantly because those newer leaders seem more interested in collecting the best information available, from all levels of an organization, about a candidate's true colors. It is up to us to remain vigilant in our evaluation and mentoring of our subordinates so that this behavior doesn't have a chance to take root and ruin things for our organizations.
I'm with you Chris and I have never worked for a large agency either. My agency has three hundred employees and I've been there twenty years. I remember maybe one that fit the Shakedown style, but he was already a lieutenant when I started and wasn't around him much. Apparently I haven't missed anything by not working for a large agency. I've heard chatter about the problems and always assumed people were just disgruntled or being hyperbolic.
Chris in addition to your comment, I also think that the numbers are dwindling because officers are taking an interest in leadership training. I think training like this is what shapes individuals to be visionary leaders. I encourage officers at any level to start taking an interest in their leadership skills.
I agree that the numbers are dwindling because of awareness. I work for an agency with just under 1000 employees and in my early years there were both types of leaders, but now you do not see them much anymore. I believe that if we continue to educate ourselves and our subordinates we can make sure that these types of leaders do not make a comeback in any type of organization.
Earlier in my career I saw that the Shakedown Style of leader was more prevalent. I think this may have been carried over from those that came before. I have also noticed that while there are still some hangers on, it is gradually being phased out. I also believe it comes about as the result of an individual with something to prove that has never led others. The Pragmatic leader is still self serving, but not as draconian as the previous model. I have noticed more of these than the Shakedown leader. Maybe because they can survive better due to showing some concern for those under them, albeit only when it benefits them.
In my experience, the Shakedown style of leadership is the style taken on by those who desire power and promotion at an early stage of their career (ie first promotion within an organization) while at the same time they really don't care about the people around them. They discipline to demonstrate to their superiors that they are keeping people in line, resulting in discipline practices that may be unfair, inconsistent, and not based on ethical or department standards. As this type of leader promotes, they become smarter and realize that their supervisors don't appreciate this style. However, they still or selfish and uncaring about their subordinates, so they hide their style and transition to the Pragmatic Bureaucrat Style, which is very similar but less overt. Their motives remain the same, still self-centered, they just become better at masking them.
Kyle, while I don't believe that I ever worked with a Shakedown Style leader, after reading your post, I can now see that it is very likely that some of the Pragmatic Bureaucrat leaders I have worked with cleared arrived at that style as a means of adapting to the expectations placed on them as they promoted. You are absolutely right in your assessment that their motives don't change much, but they just hide it better.
Excellent point. They will be very resistant to change and probably never will. They will continue to set that example for their subordinates.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if every one of our leaders in law enforcement were Real Managers? I believe we have all worked for both Shakedown Style and Pragmatic Bureaucrat Style leaders. Hopefully, you don't find yourself as a Shakedown or Pragmatic Bureaucrat. I believe a Real Manager can be more effective and is more well rounded, however, I believe in adaptability and there are traits of a Shakedown or Pragmatic Bureaucrat in all of us. As a para-military organization, sometimes you must be autocratic in tense situations, but this should be the exception and not common practice.
Frank
Most agencies still have a long way to go. I think we are just a small percentage of agencies that take part in leadership training. Most officers hear the word leadership and have a different perspective on the true meaning of the word. I have learned so many things along this journey and consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn about all the flaws that I have personally. I plan to work on my style of leadership and hopefully become a real manager before I end my law enforcement career.
I believe we should just focus on becoming the real leader for our agencies. We cannot worry about everyone else but we can continue to grow individually and positively impact others. Optimistically, we slowly can erode these detrimental managerial styles.
I agree with you, Captain Kinler. This program has made me do a lot of self-reflecting on how I can improve not only myself and my shift but also our agency. I also plan to work on my style of leadership and hope to become a real manager before I retire although I have a longer time to work on it than you.
Drauzin,
I think you are absolutely right. I think law enforcement has a long way to go toward leadership. As so many of the modules have emphasized it starts on a personal level. We must accept change and be willing to implement change. That starts from the top and bottom of the ladder. Leadership is also about the willingness to want to adapt to change.
Frank, I agree. A perfect world would be for more agencies to invest in leadership training and develop more leaders into Real Managers.
Frank,
That's is an unrealistic world. Sadly, I think we have worked with Shakedown and Pragmatic leaders more frequently than we'd like to. I'd say we often call them "micromanagers". As a leader we have to adapt with so many different aspects of policing. I think the problem comes when we focus more on getting to the top of the ladder. Sometimes when we get there we forget what it took to get us there and at some point we were those on the bottom and wanted someone to care about us and our needs as subordinates.
Frank,
It would be wonderful! I have worked for some great leaders, but also have worked for some that employed quite a bit of the Pragmatic and Shakedown styles. I think that it is necessary for some of those types of leaders to be present, as it allows us to identify and recognize the good leaders we have had to emulate their style.
The law enforcement profession has rewarded "shakedown" leaders for decades. It is our responsibility as visionary leaders to help modify the behavior of those still among our ranks. We can no longer accept and promote those that have this positional and authoritative style of management. This will require a deep dive into the various styles of leadership, which encompass the visionary leader.
Brian, very well said. We do need visionary leaders who can move beyond the "old school" autocratic management style.
Frank
Brian, I agree that this shakedown style of leadership has been ingrained in officers and is one that we must be cognizant of and work to change. It is important to modify these behaviors for the good of the individual, as well as the organization, if we are to develop credible leaders for the future.
I also agree with what ya'll have posted. We have to get that way of thinking out of our agencies in order to better the organization as a whole and develop young vibrant leaders with forethought to replace us.
I agree Nancy, I agree that we need to be aware of these behaviors within our ranks so we can make positive changes to produce credible authentic leaders.
I agree. Its very frustrating to see people in leadership positions who are only concerned for themselves, abuse their authority and have no real understanding of what it takes to be a leader.
I agree, it's frustrating to say the least, when you watch people in leadership position that only care about themselves and has complete disregard of those they are leading.
Brain you are correct! It is time for us to combat the "shakedown leaders" and prevent the continuous good ole boy promotions.
After viewing the video I now have a better understanding of the "Shakedown Style" and how officers can go through the ranks and carry it with them. We are "cynical" in nature as we are young officers and can keep that same way of thinking during our careers. It is only after understanding that "everyone is not out to hurt us" can we improve and get to the "real manager" style.
Monte, it is easy to spot the "Shakedown" style but remember that the "Pragmatic Bureaucrat" use their position of power (mid-level manager) to take advance of and to get rewards. This is much more cynical and unethical in my book. Brian
What I don't care for with the Pragmatic is that they only care about others when it benefits them and they need others to accomplish something. Once this type of leader is identified, subordinates keep this information in the forefront of their minds.
I totally agree Joey. Unfortunately, the pragmatic can be crafty and can hide their true intentions.
I agree with you Brian. The Pragmatic bureaucrat are only interested in themselves and do hide their intentions. You can spot them if you pay attention.
I agree, I think they may be harder to detect until it's too late. At the end of the day, they are in for themselves.
Without a doubt once another feels as though they have been slighted or used for the benefit of another to self promote, it will totally take away the credibility and trust of that leader.
You are correct Joey. The unfortunate truth is that often it takes a long time to for this type of leader to be exposed. In these cases a substantial amount of damage can already be done to divisions or departments.
I agree they are both bad and most of us have seen both types of leaders over our careers.
I agree, Brian. Both styles will impact employee morale but the pragmatic bureaucrat impacts both employee morale and trust.
Absolutely, trust will be out the window when that style leader is identified. Unfortunately those above him usually will like them because he or she will always agree with everything they say.
I agree with your point and have also witnessed this firsthand
Yes, after viewing this module, I find myself classifying and assigning the different styles to individuals I work with.
Brian, I agree with you. Those types of leaders are a big part of why turnover rates are high. When it is said that officers aren’t leaving for a money issue it’s because of those types of leaders are calling the shots have run the officer off.
I agree with you, because as young officers they may feel that they may always need to prove something to show their authority, when in reality they would only need to apply the real manager style for things.
The "Shakedown Style" goes hand and hand with a self-serving mentality that too many individuals carry with them as they go through the ranks into leadership. It is about them and not what they can do to make the path easier for others and they create more damage than any recognizable good. They should be asking how they can help, support and inspire the teams to make the organization stronger. It is toxic and it is time to "shake" this type of leadership.