JOURNALOF CRIMINALJUSTICE

PergamonJournal of Criminal Justice 29 (200 \) 34\ - 3SS

Robin Shepard Engel*Crime. La.v and Justice Program. Department of Sociology. Pennsylvania State University. J 0 /3 Oswald Towel; University

Pari, PA 16801. USA

Abstract

Scholars across academic disciplines have advanced theories identifying leadership styles. While thesetheoretical approaches have been used in a variety of settings, few police scholars have adapted these frameworksfor a comprehensive study of patrol supervision. The present study uses these frameworks to identify underlyingattitudinal constructs of supervisory styles from data collected for the Project on Policing Neighborhoods (POPN), asystematic observational study of patrol officers and first-line supervisors in two metropolitan police departments.Through factor analyses, four distinct supervisory styles (traditional, innovative, supportive, and active) areidentified and thoroughly described. Supervisors are classified as having one of these four primary styles ofsupervision and the distribution of these supervisory styles is examined along with differences in supervisorbehavior. Implications for policy and research are explored. ~ 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.-

Introduction tional structures with greater line-officer latitude. theimportance of supervisory styles will increase. Thepromise of this research is that it identifies differentsupervisory styles that currently exist in policing andaddresses how supervisors with particular styles dif-fer. Implications for policy and future research arealso addressed.

Most scholars and practitioners agree that super-vising patrol officers is a "challenging, and at times,insurmountable task" given the environmental con-straints and general nature of patrol work (Tim. 1971;Van Maanen, 1983). Although first-line supervisionis critical to the success of police organizations, verylittle is known about the acnlal roles and activitiesstreet-level patrol supervisors perform. In addition,differences in supervisory styles have not beenadequately described or examined. It is troubling thatthe policing community knows so little about theactivities, roles, and styles of patrol supervisors, whoare generally considered to be the backbone ofAmerican police organizations (Trojanowicz, 1980).In this era of community policing, as police depart-ments are encouraged to move from traditionalauthoritarian bureaucratic models to flatter organiza-

!,iterature review

Some general propositions can be reached from areview of the literature written about police super-visors' responsibilities, activities, and roles. First. ithas been acknowledged that the performance of first-line supervisors is measured through the effectivenessof their subordinates' perfonnance. This encouragessupervisors and subordinates to engage in a reci-procity of informal "exchanges" (Brown. 1988;Manning, 1977; Rubinstein, 1973; Van Maanen.1983). Furthermore, sergeants can use their specificdaily tasks (e.g., scheduling of shifts, beats, assign-

. Tel.: +1-814--863-6399/0078; fax: +1-814-863-7216.

E-mail address: rsengel@psu.edu (R.S. Engel).

0047.2352101/$ - see fronl matter <:> 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PO: 80047-2352(01 )00091-5

342 R.S. Engel / JoumaJ of Criminal Justice 29 (200/) 34/-315

geants. His classification was based primarily onthe activities of sergeants; active sergeants in thefield who directly monitored subordinates (streetsergeant.;) were contrasted with administrative ser-geants who were more likely to remain in thestation (station house sergeants). Van Maanen sug-gested that these two types of sergean~ definedtheir roles differently.

In addition to these "police-specific" styles, lead-e~hip styles identified in the management literaturehave been applied to police superviso~. For exam-ple, the "consideration" and "initiating structure"styles of leade~hip developed through the LeaderBehavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) (Halpin& Winer, 1957; Hemphill & Coons, 1957) have beenapplied to police supcrviso~ (Aldag & Brief, 1978;Brief, Aldag, & Wallden, 1976; Pu~ley, 1974). Like-wise, Blake and Mouton's (1978) managerial gridstyles have been applied to police superviso~ (Kuy-kendall, 1977, 1985; Swanson & Territo, 1982), aswere Hersey and Blanchard's relations-orientationand task-orientation styles (Kuykendall & Roberg,1988; Kuykendall & Unsinger, 1982). Furthennore,Jermier and Berkes (1979) have applied the super-visory styles developed in the path goal theory topolice superviso~. Most of these studies sought topredict subordinate satisfaction and generally pro-duced mixed results.

For a number of reasons, findings from thisbody of research should be interpreted with cau-tion. Fi~t, the measures of supervisory styles areoften based on subordinates' perceptions of theirsuperviso~ rather than superviso~' perceptions ofthemselves or their actual behavior (Aldag & Brief,1978; Brief et al., 1976; Jermier & Berkes, 1979).It is also unclear if the subordinates were asked to,and were able to, answer the leadership questionsabout a particular supervisor, rather than simplydescribing supervision in general (Aldag & Brief,1978; Brief et al., 1976). Many shifts are super-vised by multiple superviso~, making it problem-atic to attribute subordinates' perceptions ofsupervision to a particular supervisor. Even studiesthat base measures of supervisory styles on behav-ior are limited because they use hypotheticalvignettes rather than actual observed behavior(Kuykendall & Unsinger, 1982). Finally, whileleadership question~ can generally be appliedto most types of supervisors, they may notadequately captUre the unique circumstances ofsuperviso~ in police organizations. Several scholarswho applied these questionnaires to police popula-tions reported findings that were somewhat differ-ent from results consistently reported in themanagement field (Aldag & Brief, 1978; Brief etal., 1976; Kuykendall & Unsinger, 1982).

ments, etc.) to influence and control subordinateactions and behavior (Van Maanen, 1983, 1984).Finally, police sergeants are in a perceived positionof conflict, caught between their responsibility tosuperior officers and their responsibility for subordi-nate officers. Faced with this conflict. individualsergeants adapt and define their roles differently(Trojanowicz, 1980; Van Maanen, 1983, 1984).Therefore, one would expect patrol supervisors todevelop different supervisory styles, which influencetheir own behavior as well as the behavior of sub-ordinate officers.

Several policing ethnographies have addressedthe role of the police supervisor. Muir's (1977)work examining patrol officers' understanding ofhuman kind and morality regarding the use ofcoercion, suggested that patrol sergeants could havea fundamental influence on officers' development ofboth understanding and morality, and therefore ontheir behavior. Wilson (1968) also came to a similarconclusion, proposing that an administrator's pref-erence has a varying influence on patrol officers'use of discretion in different types of citizenencounters. In contrast, Brown (1988, p. 121)hypothesized that field supervisors and administra-tors have relatively little influence over patrol offi-cers' behavior. His examination of survey responsesof both patrol officers and supervisors indicated that"the routine actions of field supervisors have but amarginal impact on the way they [patrol officers]use their discretion." Other researchers have empiri-cally tested the effects of supervision on patrolofficer behavior (Allen, 1980, 1982; Allen & Max-field, 1983; Brehm & Gates, 1993; Gates & Wor-den. 1989; Mastrofski, Ritti, & Snipes, 1994; Reiss,1971; Smith, 1984; Tim, 1971), but no firm con-clusions have been reached. Much of this researchhas measured only the quantity of supervision (e.g.,mere supervisor presence at police-citizen encoun-ters, time spent at encounters, etc.) rather than thequality of supervision (e.g., styles of supervision,attitudinal and behavior differences among super-visors, etc.).

A handful of studies havc examined differentsupervisory and leadership styles of patrol super-visors and administrators. Both Cohen (1980) andPursley (1974) identified two types of police admin-istrators based on survey data. Pursley's "tradition-alist" and "nontraditionalist" police chiefs bear astriking resemblance to Cohen's "tradition-ori-ented" and "reform-oriented" commanders. More-over, these classifications are similar to Reuss-Ianniand Ianni's (1983) identification of the "street cop"and "management cop" cultures. Van Maanen(1983, 1984) identified and described what hetermed "street" sergeants and "station house" ser-

343R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Ju.~tice 19 (1001) J41-jJJ

In general, the police supervision literature islimited in scope and fails to answer many concep-tual and empirical questions regarding field super-vision. This is especially true of questions regardingdifferences in supervisory styles. As stated bySoutherland and Reuss-Ianni <. 1992, p. 177). "weneed more broad-based resean:h using a variety ofmethodological tools and conducted throughout awide range of police agencies. not simply general-ized from management studies conducted in busi-ness settings, to understand the current style andstatus of the police leadership and management. ,.This article provides the first attempt to address thispen:eived need. The next section describes severalunderlying attitudinal constructs identified in themanagement and policing literatures that are com-bined to create four supervisory styles for a sampleof patrol supervisors in two metropolitan policedepartments. These four styles are thoroughlydescribed and their distribution among supervisorsis explored,

Underlying attitudinal construcl.\"

task-orientation, and inspirational motivation. Theseconstructs were later combined with three police-specific constructs (expectations for communitypolicing, expectations for aggressive enforcement,and general views of subordinates), to create super-visory styles for police officers.

The first underlying construct. level of activity.examined the extent to which leadership was eitheravoided or attempted. This construct involved therelative distance and/or amount of supervision aleader employs. Early leadership research focusedon three classic styles developed by Lewin andLippitt (1938): authoritarian, democratic, and lais-sez-faire. One of the defining characteristics ofthese styles was the level of activity displayed bythe leader. For example. laissez-faire leaders weredescribed as inactive leaders that avoid or shirktheir supervisory duties (Lewin, Lippitt. & White,1939). In his discussion of Theory X and Theory Ymanagement styles. McGregor (1960) comparedclose, controlling supervision to supervision thatwas more general and loose. Rather than simplyidentifying active or passive leadership as a dichot-omy, a leader's motivation to manage can bemeasured along a continuum.

The second construct of leadership styles wasbased on how leaders made decisions (e.g., groupdecision-making. group input with one person decid-ing. one person deciding with no input. etc.). Tan-nenbaum and Schmidt (1958) examined how leadersmade decisions and developed a continuum of auto-cratic and democratic behavior. Bass (1990)described the differences between directive deci-sion-making and participative decision-making. Thedirective leader "plays an active role in problem-solving and decision-making and expects groupmembers to be guided by his or her actions," whileparticipative leaders engage subordinates in the plan-ning or decision-making process (Bass, 1990). lead-ers have also been differentiated based on how theycommunicate the decisions they make to subordi-nates. Hersey and Blanchard (1988) have describedfour types of leadership styles - telling, selling,participative, and delegating - that are based in part

on one-way and two-way communications betweenleaders and subordinates.

A third construct examined how power is di.~trib-uled (i.e., who is in charge, how many share power,who makes the decisions, etc.). "Power" refers to thecontrol of odters, though it does not necessarily implyauthority, or the legitimization of power in the eyes offollowers (Graham & Hays, 1993). Authority ispower that has been legitimized in the eyes of thefollower. A leader may rely on other types of powerthat are not based on legitimate authority, for exam-ple, French and Raven (1960) identified five power

Since the 1930s, scholars focusing on leadershiptheories have described a variety of different leader-ship styles. Similarities among these theories areeasily identified by examining their underlying atti-tudinal and behavioral constructs (Bass, 1990; Gra-ham & Hays, 1993; Yuki, 1989). Indeed, there arestrong similarities and one should expect a correlationbetween Lewin and Lippitt's (1938) "democratic"leaders, those leaders scoring high on the "consid-eration factor" created by the LBDQ (Hemphill &Coons, 1957), and Blake and Mouton's (1978) "con-cern for people" factor. The characteristics defmingthese types of leaders also correspond to Hersey andBlanchard's (1988) relations-oriented leader, McGre-gor's (1957, 1960) Theory Y managers, and Bass'(1985, 1990) transformational leader. Since many ofthe taxonomies of leadership behavior are similar,many of the leadership styles capture the sameattitudes and behaviors. Yet, it is important to identifythe actual individual constructs on which these lead-ership styles are based. Bass (1990) identified someindividual attitudinal constructs underlying styles ofleadership, each of which should be considered acontinuum upon which leaders vary.

Rather than relying on styles identified in themanagement literature, this work identified under-lying attitudinal constructs that were consideredimportant for police supervision. Using Bass'(1990) work as a base, six underlying attitudinalconstructs were identified and measured for a sampleof police field supervisors: level of activity, decision-

making, power distribution, relations-orientation,

344 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) J4J-J55

bases that may be utilized by leaders: legitimate,reward. coen;ive. referent, and expert power.

The fourth and fifth underlying constructs,referred to as relations-orientation and ta.\"k-orienta-lion, involve the focus of the leader's attention(Hersey & Blanchard, 1988). These dimensionsconsider what needs are being met as determinedby the particular focus chosen by the leader. leaderswho are more relations-oriented focus their attentionon the well-being of their subordinates. These lead-ers pursue a human-relations approach and maintain

supportive relationships with subordinates by build-ing friendships and mutual trust. In contrast. task-oriented leaders are most concerned with the goalsof the work group, means of achieving these goals,and the output produced. These leaders focus onproduction and achievement. Although these twodimensions share common elements, they are con-ceptually and empirically distinct. Therefore. aleader could simultaneously rank high (or low) onboth dimensions. Relations-orientation and task-ori-entation are similar to the "consideration" and"initiating structure" dimensions identified throughthe use of the lBDQ (Halpin & Winer 1957;Hemphill & Coons, 1957) and the "concern forpeople" and "concern for production" dimensionssystematic arranged into the Managerial Grid (Blake& Mouton. 1978).

The final construct identified from the manage-ment literature, inspirational motivation, was a lead-ership dimension that refers to the potential range ofteam-building behavior that a leader may demon-strate. This dimension includes motivating and inspir-

ing subordinates, arousing team spirit, anddemonstrating commitment to goals and sharedvision. Inspirational motivation is a form of trans-formational leadership (Bass & Avolio, 1994).

Research sites

holds with children. The VCR Index crime rate in1996 was 100 per 1,000 residents. During that year.the department employed 1.013 sworn officers - 17pen:ent female, 21 percent minority. and 36 pen:entwith a four-year college degree. The patrol divisionwas divided geographically into four districts. all ofwhich were studied during the project. Each districtwas unique in character, mission. and emphasisplaced on community policing (for details see Mas-trofski et al.. 2000; Parks et al., 1999).

Supervisory structure and form differed acrossTPD districts and shifts. It was unclear if a direct

supervisor-subordinate relationship actually existedbecause this department did not have a fonnalevaluation process in place. Each patrol officer inIPD was assigned one of three work schedules with

rotating days off. On each shift in every district, asergeant was assigned to a particular schedule. There-fore, each shift had three different squads supervisedby different sergeants. This supervisory structureprovided that sergeants work the same schedule asthe group of officers (their squad) that they wereresponsible for. Officers working in specialized com-munity policing units were directly supervised byone sergeant whose sole responsibility was to mon-itor and direct the activities of the officers in thatunit. Three of the four observed districts had a

community-policing unit. although the structure andemphases of these units differed. Finally. in the patroldivision, one lieutenant was assigned to each shift ineach district

St. Pet~burg, Florida is located at the southerntip of Pinellas County with a population of240,318 in 1995, including 24 pen:ent minorities.5 pen:ent unemployed, 6 pen:ent below the povertylevel, and 10 pen:ent female-headed householdswith children. The VCR Index crime rate (per1.000 residents) was 99 in 1996. During that year,the St. Petersburg Police Department had 505swom officers, 13 percent of whom were women,22 percent minority. and 26 pen:ent with a four-

year college degree (Parks et al., 1999). Thejurisdiction of this department was divided intothree districts and forty-eight community policingareas (CPA) with a community policing officerassigned to each area.

The SPPD supervision structure had undergonetremendous change in recent years. I During the

period of observation. it reflected a compromiscbetween geographic deployment and a squad sys-tem. Sergeants were directly responsible for a"team" of officers on a particular shift workingin a specific sector or geographic area (three sectorsin each district), along with a handful of commun.

ity policing officers assigned to a CPA. Eachsergeant had responsibility for one or more CPAs

This empirical examination of supervision usesdata collected for the Project on Policing Neighbor-hoods (POPN), a large-scale study of police behaviorfunded by the National Institute of Justice. Systematicobservation of patrol officers and field supervisors(sergeants and lieutenants) was conducted during thesummer of 1996 in the Indianapolis, Indiana PoliceDepartment and during the summer of 1997 in the StPetersburg, Florida Police Department (see Parks,Mastrofski, Dejong. & Gray, 1999).

The Indianapolis Police Department serves thecity of Indianapolis, which had an estimated popula-tion of 377,723 in 1995, including 39 percent minor-ities, 8 percent unemployed, 9 percent below thepoverty level, and 17 percent female-headed house-

R.S. Engel / JOIImal ofCrimillal JILJI;ce 29 (1001) J41-jjj 345

(and the community policing officers working inthose areas) within their sector. Sergeants werescheduled to work three "temporal" shifts(twenty-four hours) and then "flex" their schedulefor the remaining sixteen hours each week. Duringa "temporal" shift, sergeants were responsible forthe direct supervision of all patrol officers work.ingthat shift for the entire district, not just their sector.During "flex" shifts, sergeants were expected towork on problem-solving in their specific CPA,supervise their community policing officers, andcomplete administmtive paperwork.

Methodology

Systematic observation was conducted in IPDwith fifiy-eight patrol supervisors (sergeants andlieutenants) during eighty-seven rides, totaling over600 hours - 78 percent of IPD patrol sergeants andlieutenants were observed at least once. In SPPD,systematic observation was conducted with twenty-six patrol sergeants, four patrol lieutenants, andeight patrol officers working as the acting temporalsergeant during seventy-two shifts - 96 percent ofpatrol sergeants in SPPD were observed at leastonce. Data were also obtained through structuredinterviews with sixty-nine of seventy-four patrolsupervisors in IPD and all twenty-seven patrolsergeants in SPPD. The interview captured demo-graphic and background information along withsupervisors' views in the following areas: perceivedproblems in their districts, training, subordinates,their role as supervisors, how they distribute and

use power, patrol work, goals of policing, prioritiesof management, and problem-oriented and commun-ity-oriented policing.

In addition, field observation of patrol officerswas conducted for over 5,700 hours in twenty-fourneighborhoods across the two sites. In IPD, 194patrol officers were observed during 336 shifts, whilein SPPD, 128 officers were observed during 360shifts. Combined, observers recorded infonnationregarding encounters between officelS and approxi-mately 12,000 citizens (parks et al., 1999).

The measures of supervision used in the follow-ing analyses are based on supervisors who wereboth interviewed and observed. Combining bothsites, eighty-one supervisors are included in theanalyses - seventeen lieutenants and thirty-ninesergeants from IPD and twenty-five sergeants fromSPPD.2 The demographic characteristics of thesesupervisors are displayed in Table I. The majorityof supervisors in this sample were White (85 per-cent), male (85 percent), and with a four-yearcollege degree (51 percent). The average supervisorwas forty-four years old with nearly ten years ofsupervisory experience. Although supervisorsreported receiving more training on issues relatedto supervision, management, and leadership com-pared to the concepts and principles of communitypolicing, they reported having more know/edgeabout community policing issues.

In the following analyses, the substantive natureof supervision is measured using the underlyingattitudinal dimensions of supervisory styles identifiedfrom the management and policing litenltures. Indi-vidual items are extracted from the supervisor surveyand are intended to represent the supervisors' beliefs

Table ISupervisors' characteristics

StandarddeviationMin Max Mean

0.360.367.997.130.500.99

0I

.723

s 3.70

3 .40 0.52

Variables . ---Sup sex (I = female) -,:~c;Sup race (1 =nonwbite)Supervisor ageYeaIS experience as supervisorEducation (four-year college degree)Amount tnining in concepts and principles

of community policingAmount knowledge of concepts and principles

of community policingAmount training in supervision. management,

and leadershipAmount knowledge in supervision.

management. and leadership-N = 17 (PO lieutenants, 39 (PD sergeants, aDd 2S SPPD sergeants.

Amount tnining: I (none), 2 (less than one day), 3 (one to two days), 4 (thrce to five days), and S (more than five days).Amount knowledge: I (very), 2 (fairly), 3 (not very knowleciPle).

346 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) J4/-Jjj

Table 2Supervisors' attitudinal dimensions

0.960.883.121.091.463.171.233.902.32

7.065.48

25.652.533.00

12.443.94

27.418.82

65

2422

114

278

6.24S.77

23.322.482.36

13.843.80

26.609.36

Activity level scaleDecision-making scalePower scaleRelations I - friendsRelations 2 - protectTask-orientation scaleInspirational motivationExpect CP scaleExpect aggressive

enforcement scaleView of subordinates

scale

204

9 8.18 .00 8.58 8.35 7.64

N = 81 supervisors.

Larger values represent higher levels of activity. more direct decision-making. more perceived power. and higher levels ofrelations-orientation. task -oricntation. inspi~tional motivation. expectations for CPo expectations for aggressive enforcement, andmore positive vicws of subordinates. Numbers reported in the table are unstandardized scores.

The attitudinal constructs do relate to oneanother in a meaningful and interpretable manner.As expected, some scales do have significant cor-relation coefficients. For example. supervisors whoare strongly relations-oriented also appear to havepositive views of subordinate officers. Likewise,supervisors who score high on the communityexpectation scale tend to score low on die aggres-sive enforcement expectation scale. Indeed, all ofthe consbUcts correlate in the expected directions(see Shepard, 1999).

and attitudes (for a complete list of these items, seeAppendix A). Six additive scales are created torepresent the attitudinal dimensions previouslydescribed: power distribution, decision-making,

activity level, relations-orientation, task-{)rientation,and inspirational motivation.) These scales are furtherdescribed in Table 2.

Any examination of supervisory styles of patrolofficers must also take police-specific attitudinalconstructs into consideration. In addition to the sixdimensions previously described, three police-spe-cific constructs were examined: supervisors' expect-ations for community policing by subordinates,expectations for aggressive enforcement by subordi-nates, and their general views of subordinates (seeTable 2 and Appendix A). These police-specificdimensions were believed to be important underlyingcomponents of supervisory styles.

Findings

These nine constructs4 are analyzed using explor-atory factor analysis to identify underlying latentstyles of supervision. Based on the sample of

.74

.67..51.54.74.64.33.'1.OS

347R.s. Engel / Joumal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 341-)55

81 [the supervisor observed] was obsessed with theissue of respect. 8 I expounded at length about thefamiliarity of the department and laxity of discipline.He blamed this initially on the academy training,then the demise of the military style. and societalerosion of respect for elden and authority. 51 citedthe old-style policing when officers would neveraddress their superiors by name but by rank andwould hope against hope to not be called into asupervisor's office. Now. 81 claims that the officersseek out the district commanders personally insteadof adhering to the chain of command (POPN).6

eighty-one supervisors, factor analysis reveals foursignificant factors with eigenvalues greater than one,which collectively explain 63 percent of the var-iance.s The factor loadings for each attitudinal con-struct are reported in Table 3. Each of the four factorsis considered a different "style" of supervision. Thefactor scores indicate the strength of each underlyingattitudinal construct for each style. The four styles ofsupervision that emerge are labeled traditional, inno-vative, supportive, and active, respectively. Super-visors are classified with a particular style based ontheir highest factor score.

Just as traditional supervisors expect strict lawenforcement on the street, they expect adherence todepartmental rules including the chain of command.Emphasis of both discipline and respect are centralto this style of supervision. As described by ano-ther supervisor:

'Traditional" supervisors

S 1 [the supervisor observed] said that he will sanc-tion individuals if necessary and that he has actuallyhad someone fired for nu~us small things thatjust seemed to add up. S 1 noted that most othersergeants would not have sought action against thisparticular subordinate, but he believes that officersshould follow the rules, and when given instructions.should follow those instructions. S I said he wasmore upset that the officer in question did not submitto his authority than by his actual behavior (POPN).

Traditional supervisors are also generally resist-ant to community-oriented policing or other newpolicing initiatives. They believe that communitypolicing involves duties that should not be theresponsibility of patrol officers. The following ex-planation by a supervisor is typical of a traditionalsupervisor's view:

SI [the observed supervisor] is a self-described'traditionalist and dinosaur'. .. . SI felt that manage-ment has a real problem as a result of bending andswaying too much with whatever prevailing climatcis in existence concerning the community, mcdia andpolitics. In attempting to demonstrate change, initia-tivc, and forward movcment they have jeopardizedefficiency, true policing, and proficiency (POPN).

Traditional supervisors are more likely to besupportive of new policing initiatives if they are inthe form of aggressive law enforcement. Of thoseclassified as traditional, 61.9 percent "agreestrongly" that "enforcing the law is by far a patrolofficer's most important responsibility," compared toonly 13.6 percent of innovative supervisors, 10.5percent of supportive supervisors, and 10.5 percentof active supervisors. They expect and encourage the"traditional" goals of policing and demand strictadherence to rules and regulations.

The first factor is dominated by an expectation ofaggressive enforcement and attitudes indicating highlevels of task-orientation. To a lesser extent, thesesupervisors report being more directive in theirdecision-making and have lower expectations forsubordinates to engage in community policing activ-ities. Supervisors who scorc high on this factor maybe considered more traditional in their approach tosuper..ision. This traditional style of supervision ischaracterized by supervisors who expect subordinateofficers to prOOucc measurable outcomes - partic-ularly an'eSts and citations, along with paperworkand documentation. Traditional supervisors expectofficers to patrol aggressively, but they do notexpect officers to handle situations that involveorder maintenance or quality of life issues. Theyare more likely to make decisions because they tendto take over encounters with citizens or tell officershow to handle these incidents.

The traditional style of supervision is what manyexpect in police organizations. The supervisor whoplaces importance on measurable outcomes of policeactivities and aggressive enforcement is representa-tive of the "traditional" style of supervisor. They areconcerned with controlling situations and the behav-ior of their subordinates. This control is maintainedthrough relatively traditional means within the depart-ment - checking paperwork, measuring outputbased on arrest statistics, and making decisionsthemselves so subordinates will not have the oppor-tunity to mishandle a situation.

It is important to recognize the differencesbetween this style and other "traditional" labels ofsupervisors or officers from past research. Readersmay misinterpret traditional supervisors as shieldingsubordinate officers from punishment and being moretolerant of corruption. One aspect of traditional super-visors in this sample, however, is their no-nonsenseapproach to policing, along with their strict enforce-ment of rules and regulations. As an observerrecounts about a traditional supervisor:

348 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) J41-j5j

Supervisors' support for innovative strategiesappears to extend to expectations for their subordi-nates. Innovative supervisors' high scores on theexpectation for community policing scale show thatthey expect subordinates to perfonn community-related tasks and insist on better relations with thecommunity. One innovative supervisor describes hisexpectations for subordinates:

SI [the supervisor observed] said that he expects hisofficers to be fair with citizens and act in a morallydefendable manner. 51 said that the people in thecommunity are important to him and that officersoften forget that they are employed by these people.S 1 said that he expects his officers will tn:at allcitizens with dignity and respect and act in a 'cour-teous and respectful manner.' S 1 was very sensitiveto matters of ethnicity, race, and gender. S I said thatevery officer brings something different to the joband that a good officer is one who recognizes andaccepts differences among groups of people. He saidthat he expects that officers will interact with citizensfrom different groups in appropriate though pedJapsdifferent ways (POPN).

The observed behavior of traditional supervisorsalso varied in expected ways. Traditional supervisorsspend significantly less time per shift engaging inencounters with citizens (2.0 percent compared to5.4 percent). This behavioral difference reinforcesthe characterization of traditional supervisors. Onemight speculate that they spend less time engagingwith citizens simply because they emphasize theirrole as supervisor rather than doing patrol work.Although they may take over some incidents andmake decisions, they are less likely to engage indirect citizen contact on their own. Furthermore,because traditional supervisors do not emphasizecommunity policing, they may be less likely toengage in these activities themselves, which trans-lates into less casual citizen contact, less contactwith victims, fewer meetings with community rep-resentatives, etc.

Other observed behavior provides further supportfor classification. Traditional sergeants and lieuten-ants are more likely to give advice or instruction tosubordinates (6.4 times per shift compared to 4.6times), but less likely to reward them (0.9 times pershift compared to 2.4 times). Traditional supervisorsmay be less likely to reward officers because they areless relations-oriented. Rather, they are concernedwith controlling situations and task-related behavior.Instructing subordinates is a behavior consistent withtheir desire for control.

"Innovative" supervisors

These expectations are further evident throughinnovative supervisors' responses to individual sur-vey questions. For example, 95.5 percent of innova-tive supervisors reported that they "agree strongly"that "a good patrol officer will try to find out whatresidents think the neighborhood problems are,"compared to only 47.6 percent of traditional super-visors, 68.4 percent of supportive supervisors, and68.4 percent of active supervisors.

One of the goals of innovative supervisors is toprovide subordinates with the support to implementcommunity policing and problem-solving strategies.Scholars have noted that supervisors in an era ofcommunity policing should assume a new role, whichincludes coaching, mentoring, and facilitating offi.cers. Innovative supervisors are more likely toembrace this new role. As one innovative supervisorexplained to an observer:

SI [supervisor observed] said that his role involvesbecoming a 'teacher or educator' to the officers. S Isaid that if nothing else. his many years of servicehave provided him with the opportunity to see avariety of situations. S I said that this insight is onlyvaluable if shared with other officers who may learnsomething fi'om his experiences. S I said tbat offi-cers frequently come to him for advice or sugges-tions about how he would have handled a particularsituation. He said that what he tries to leacb officersis that every situation is different. S I said thatfrequently officers will become so routinized intheir responses to situations that they lump togetheras being identical. S I said the key is to leachofficers that although situations are similar. thereare always different elements involved and that

The second factor represents supervisors whoscore high on the power and community-relationsexpectation scales. This factor is also charncterizedby high relations-orientation (have more officers theyconsider friends), low task-orientation, and morepositive views of subordinates. These supervisorsare "innovative" because they are generally moresupportive of innovative changes in policing. Theyare defined by their expectations for communitypolicing and problem-solving efforts by subordi-nates. Furthennore, they are less concerned withenforcing rules and regulations, report writing, orother task-oriented activities that characterize tradi-tional supervisors.

Innovative supervisors are more receptive of newpolicing initiatives, and as a result, may encouragetheir officers to embrace these new philosophies aswell. As one supervisor explained to an observer:

Sl [observed supervisor] said that he is not resistantto change because he enjoys seeing the depal1rnentstrive to produce better quality services for thecommunity. S I said that some policies are certainlymore effective than others but without change thereis no way to make progress (POPN).

R.s. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (200/) 34/-J55 349

One example of this protective butTer is explainedby a supervisor:

SI said that he also feels his role is to take care ofhisofficers and be their advocate in front of the admin-istration . . . S I explained that it is almost like a pleabargain in routt. S I said that during administrativeproceedings against his officers, he often concedesthat thcy have done something wrong, but also tellsthe mitigating circumstances and tries to sell theofficer's good points (POPN).

Alternatively, supportive supervisors may simplyencourage officers through praise and recognition, orshow support by establishing good relations withsubordinates, acting as counselors and showing con-cern for subordinates' personal well-being. Further-more, supervisors can become "career counselors" ina sense, looking out for the well-being of subordinateofficers within the organization.

In some cases, supportive supervisors do not havestrong ties or positive relations with managementThey often view the police administration as some-thing that patrol officers need to be shielded against

ditfen:nt ways to handle these situations may beappropriate (POPN).

Unlike traditional supervisors, innovative super-visors generally do not tell subordinates how tohandle situations or take over the situations them-selves. Rather, they are more likely to delegatedecision-making. Innovative supervisors haveaccepted a new supervisory role characterized byless control over subordinates' behavior and deci-sion-making. They chose to guide and teach theirpolicing philosophies rather than strictly controlofficers' behavior.

Some behaviors displayed by innovative super-visors differ significantly from behaviors observedfor other supervisors. For example, innovativesupervisors spend significantly more time per shiftengaging in encounters with citizens (6.5 percent ofthe shift compared to 3.8 percent). Presumably,those supportive of innovative strategies wouldspend more time themselves engaging in commun-ity-policing types of activities, which include inter-acting with citizens. Innovative supervisors alsospend more time engaging in other types of com-munity policing activities, but these differences arenot statistically significant.

Innovative supervisors also spend significantlymore time per shift engaging in personal encoun-ters (with citizens or other officers) than othersupervisors (14.5 percent compared to 8.7 per-cent). This behavioral difference is also consistentwith the descriptions of innovative supervisors.Those supervisors who emphasize and engage incommunity-oriented activities often have moreunstructured time, and as a result, more time forpersonal activities.

'Supportive" supervisor.\'

Sl [observed supervisor] said that from manage-ment's point of view, the sergeant is thc ~n thatthey will "hang out to dry" as an example and to ridthemselves of resj,onsibility. S I said that his true roleis to protect officers from the whim'! of managcmentand also to make sure that the officen are doing theirjobs and back up one another (POPN).

As a result, some supervisors classified assupportive may actually function more as a "pro-tector" than strictly a "supporter." Of the suppor-tive supervisors, 68.4 percent reported that"protecting their officers from unfair criticism andpunishment" is one of their three most importantfunctions, compared to only 9.5 percent of tradi-tional supervisors, 4.5 percent of innovative super-visors, and none of the active supervisors. Thesefindings relate to Reuss-Ianni and Ianni's (1983)description of two predominate cultures in policing,street-cop culture and management-cop culture.Supportive supervisors appear to adhere to street-cop culture by aligning themselves with their sub-ordinates against administrators. They are manage-ment cops only in the sense that their rank is higherthan entry level.

This protector role adopted by some supportivesupervisors has the potential to become problematic.As has been noted in recent history, shielding officersfrom accountability mechanism within the depart-ment often leads to police misconduct (ChristopherCommission, 1991; Mollen Commission, 1994).Supervisory protection of officers has also been asso-ciated in other research with promoting police solid-arity and secrecy, which cultivates an atmosphere

The third factor is characterized by high scoreson the "protect subordinates" relations-oricntationscale and low scores on the task-orientation scale.Additionally, this factor is represented by higherlevels of inspirational motivation. These supervisorssupport subordinates by protecting them from"unfair" discipline or punishment and providinginspirational motivation. Furthennore, supportivesupervisors are less concerned with enforcing rulesand regulations, paperwork, or making sure officersdo their work.

Supportive supervisors show their concern forsubordinates in a number of ways. They may providea butTer between officers and management to protectagainst criticism and discipline. This gives theirofficers space to perfonn duties without constantworry of disciplinary action for honest mistakes.

350 R.s. Engel / JOIImoI of Criminal Justice 29 (1(XJI) 141-J55

where police abuse of power, misconduct. and cor-ruption are tolerated (Crank, 1998; Kappeler, Sluder,& Alpert, 1998; Skolnick & Fyfe, 1993).

Systematic observation of supportive supervisorsreveals only one significant difference in behavior.Supportive supervisors praise or reward subordinateofficers significantly more often during an averageshift than do other types of supervisors (3.0 times pershift compared to 1.7 times). Intuitively, one wouldexpect this behavior from supportive supervisors whoare concerned with relations-orientation and inspira-tional motivation.

tance to be too controlling and therefore alienatesubordinate officers. As one active supervisorexplained to an observer:

51 [supervisor observed] told me that he is the typeof supervisor who likes 10 "get involved" and "be~" for his officers. 51 stated that he loves beingon the streets. I askcd 51 if he considered himself 10be a "hands-on" manager. 51 thought about it for amoment, and then shook his head [no]. 51 com-mcnted that he associated "hands-on" with a super-visor who would gel "too involved", not trusting hi.~subordinates to do the job con-ectly or with a super-visor who was a control freak ... 5 I stated that hewould describe himself as a sergeant who did hisbest to be available 10 his officers and as someoncwho was there to back them up. At this time. 5 I toldme that he would take calls and volunteer as backup,so his officers would know that he was not "above"working alongside them (POPN).

Active .. supervisors

As evident by this supervisor, there is a fine linebetween active supervisors and those who are per-ceived as overcontrolling or micro-managers bytheir subordinates,

Active supervisors spend more time per shiftengaging in general motor patrol (33,0 percent of ashift compared to 25,7 percent) and traffic encounters(3.9 percent compared to 2.1 percent). Active super-visors are also less likely to engage in work-relateddiscussions regarding crime or disorders with sub-ordinate officers (4,7 times per shift compared to 8.0times). This is probably due to the amount of timesupervisors spend in the field and not in direct contactwith officers in the station where most of theseconversations are likely to occur. Again. the differ-ences in behavior lend supPlJI1:, ';,'11 ofthese supervisors.

The fourth factor is characterized by high levelsof activity and positive views of subordinates. To alesser extcnt, this factor is also represented by highscores on decision-making, high levels of per-ceived power, and low levels of inspirationalmotivation. The active supervisor can be comparedto Van Maanen's "street" sergeant. These super-visors are often in the field. directive in theirdecision-making, and have a relatively positiveview of subordinates.

One characteristic of active supervisors is work-ing alongside their subordinates in the field.Among active supervisors, 94.7 percent report thatthey often go on their own initiative to incidentsthat their officers are handling, compared to only23.8 percent of traditional officers, 54.5 percent ofinnovative supervisors, and 68.4 percent of suppor-tive supervisors. Another goal of active supervisorsis to control subordinate behavior, as shown withtheir high scores on the decision-making andpower scales.

In addition, active supervisors also give impor-tance to being in the field and engaging in policework themselves. The same supervisor explained:

Di...tribution of supervisory styles

8 \ indicated that he does not follow the popularopinion that "\ got my stripes so \ don't need to dopatrol work anymore." 81 indicated that he still doestraffic stops, takes his own calls, and goes on callswhen he is not required. When \ got in 81's car tobegin the ride, he had two traffic tickets that he hadwritten on his way to work. I also saw him stop twopeople on traffic violations (POPN).

Active supervisors attempt to achieve a balancebetween being active in the field and controlling sub-ordinate behavior through constant, direct supervision.

Even though active supervisors believe they haveconsiderable influence over subordinate decisions,low scores on the inspirational motivation scale

show they are less likely to help them work onproblems. One possible explanation is their reluc-

The distribution of supervisory styles for thissample of sergeants and lieutenants is reported inTable 4. There is a roughly equal distribution of eachstyle, however. when the styles are examined for eachdepartment separately, significant differences emerge.Traditional supervisors are significantly overrepre-sented in SPPD, while active supervisors are under-represented. Supervisors in lPD are evenly distributedacross all styles. however, lPD lieutenants are slightlymore likely to be classified as innovative and lesslikely to be classified as traditional.

Also reported in Table 4 are the differencesbetween male and female supervisors. Female super-visors represent a disproportionate number of tradi-tional supervisors (SO percent of female supervisorsare classified as traditional supervisors). With thisexception, few other differences in classification are

Journal of Criminal Justice 19 (100/) J4/-Jjj 151R.S. Engel

Table 4Supervisory styles

Males(11 c 69:

0.22

0.30

0.25

0.23

Females(11-12)

0.500.080.170.25

White(11-69)

0.260.260.250.23

Nonwhite(n= 12)

IPDlieutenants

(n = 17)

IPDseIIeaIlts(ne39)--0.180.280.260.28

Overau(,,:81)

0.260.270.230.23

SPPDsergeants(n=2S)

0.480.200.201\ ,..

0.2.S

0.33

0.17

0.15

0.120.350.24

Variables

Traditional styleInnovative style

Supportive styleActive style

SA degree(~-41)

0.240.270.200.29

Numbers in the cells are means ~ng the pen:ent of superviSOR with that predominant style

apparent. There are no statistically significant differ-ences in classification with regard to the superviso~'race, rank, age, years of experience, or education. Thefour types of superviso~ also do not differ from oneanother in their reported views of the importance ofpromotion or moving to a specialized unit, and theiramount of training and general knowledge of theprinciples of community policing. Innovative super-viso~, however, reported receiving significantly moretraining in supervision, management. and leade~hip.

Discussion

lations as a means to control their officers. Theyrely on what French and Raven (1960) have termeda "coercive" power base (power taken from sub-ordinates' perceptions of a leader's ability to medi-ate punishments given to them). In contrast, malesupervisors are more likely to rely on "legitimate"power (based on subordinates' perceptions that theleader has a legitimate right to direct their actions)or "referent" power (based on subordinates' idcn-tification with leaders).

This explanation also accounts for the higherpercentage of traditional supervisors in SPPD. Manyof the SPPD supervisors complained that the super-visory structure and goals had changed several timesin recent years duc to administrative turnover and theimplementation of innovativc strategies. Many super-visors were unclear what their roles in the organiza-tion were, or what management expected of them. Infact, 72 percent of SPPD sergeants indicated duringobservation sessions that the structure of supervisionand othcr departmental policies limited their ability toassess subordinate behavior and perform supervisoryfunctions. Only 4 percent of IPD supervisors indi-cated similar feelings. It is likely that supervisors inorganizations with changing structures, priorities, andstrategies emphasize the one familiar clement of theirsupervisory role - controlling subordinate behavior

by enforcing established rules and regulations.The implications for day-to-day operations and

relationships with citizens for departmenlo; having amajority of supervisors with a traditional style areunknown. The present research has firmly estab-lished differences in supervisors' attitudes andbehaviors; however, whether or not these differenceshave an influence over subordinates' behavior on thestreet is an empirical question that should beexplored. That is, to better assess the implicationsfor policy and future research, the influence of theseparticular supervisory styles on subordinates' atti-tudes and behaviors I)eed to be examined. Althoughmost scholars and practitioners agree that one role ofpolice field supervisors is to control the behavior

their office~, the degree of control that supervisorsactually have continues to be a matter of debate(Allen, 1980, 1982; Allen & Maxfield, 1983; Brehm

Using six underlying constructs identified fromleadership theories and three underlying constructsidentified from police ethnographic research, fourdifferent styles of police field supervisors are identi-fied. These supervisory styles are evenly distributedamong the sample of eighty-one supervisors, how-ever, significant departmental differences exist.Nearly half of SPPD supervisors are traditional,compared to only 16 percent of IPD supervisors.Likewise, only 12 percent of SPPD supervisors areactive, compared to 29 percent from IPD. Differencesalso emerge when the supervisor's sex is considered.Fifty percent of female supervisors are traditionalsupervisors, compared to only 22 percent of malesupervisors. Furthermore, only 8.3 pen::ent of femalesupervisors are innovative, compared to over 30percent of males.

One explanation for these differences is thenature of the traditional supervisory style. Tradi-tional supervisors are primarily concerned withcontrolling subordinate behavior. This is accom-plished by demanding compliance with rules andregulations, monitoring work output measures, andusing discipline. Van Maanen (1983) speculatedthat supervisors often focus on rules and regula-tions because they are concrete and can be con-trolled in a work environment that is unstable anddifficult to regulate. Female supervisors, perhapsseeking to gain legitimacy in their supervisoryroles, may be more likely to use rules and regu-

352 R.s. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 19 (1001) 34/-355

could be collected. While the POPN researchdesign did have a partial ethnographic componentwith detailed information collected during eachride, the ability to describe long-term patterns ofsupervision and the structural, environmental, andpolitical factors affecting these patterns was some-what limited. Future research on police supervisionshould address these issues.

Nonetheless, thc implications for policy wereclear. Police administrators who wish to establishparticular policies and procedures within their depart-ments need to recognize the differences in first-linesupervisors. None of the four supervisory stylesidentified in this research should be considered the"ideal" standard for police supervision. Each stylewas associated with both benefits and problems. Theappropriate supervisory style for departments willdiffcr based on their organizational goals. Policeadministrat~ should recognize the need for bettertraining of first-line supervisors to achieve theseorganizational goals.

Acknowledgments

& Gates, 1993; Gates & Worden, 1989; Mastrofski et

al., 1994; Reiss, 1971; Smith, 1984; Tifft, 1971).Based on their reported attitudes and observed

behavior, one might expect that each of these fourtypes of supervisors would have influences oversubordinates' attitudes and behavior that differ sig-nificantly in form and substance. For example, onemight speculate that officers with traditional or activesupervisors would be more likely to engage inaggressive enforcement activities in an effort toproduce measurable output (arrests and citations).As a result of this aggressive enforcement. officersmight be involved in more conflicts with citizens andperhaps be more likely to use force. Analyses haveshown that at least one supervisory style (active) hasa significant influence on the increased likelihood ofpatrol officers' use of force. Analyses also show,however, that patrol officers with active supervisorsspend significantly more time engaging in police-initiated and problem-solving activities, and havehigher rates of arrest (Engel, 2000; forthcoming).

It will also be important to test whether or notinnovative supervisors have an influence over theacceptance and utilization of community policingand problem-solving techniques. One might spec-ulate that officers supervised by an innovativesupervisor would spend more time on problem-solving activities. Alternatively. these officers mighttake their cues directly from innovative supervisorsby spending more time conducting personal busi-ness or otherwise neglecting their duties. Finally.future research should examine the influence thatsupportive supervisors have over police misconduct.The protector role that some supportive supervisorsembrace might be directly related to problematicsubcultural norms including isolation, secrecy.and solidarity.

Although identifying supervisory styles andexamining differences in supervisors' behavior haveprovided interesting findings. caution should beexercised when interpreting them. The data usedin this study of police supervision were limited inseveral ways. The POPN utilized a data collectiondesign created for systematic observation ofencounters between patrol officers and citizens.The study of patrol supervision did not fit neatlyinto this scheme. Although systematic observationand surveys provided a descriptive slice of policework, they often did not provide detailed informa-tion about long-term patterns of police behavior orthe effectiveness of long-term policies and strat-egies. The study of patrol supervision might bebetter captured by some type of modified ethno-graphic research design where detailed information

about the actual patterns (especially the underlyingrationales, objectives, etc.) of supervisory practices

Previous versions of this paper were presented atthe American Society of Criminology annual mcet-ing, Washington, D.C., November 1998 and theAcademy of Criminal Justice Sciences annual meet-ing, Orlando, Florida. March 1999.

This manuscript was based on data from theProject on Policing Neighborhoods, directed byStephen D. Mastrofski, Roger B. Parks, Albert J.Reiss, Jr., and Robert E. Worden. The project wa...supported by Grant No. 95-IJ-CX-OO71 by theNational Institute of Justice, Office of JusticePrograms, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of viewin this document are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position or policiesof the U.S. Department of Justice.

The author would like to thank the followingscholars for their helpful comments and suggestions:Robert E. Worden, Hans Toch, David H. Bayley,David McDowall, Alissa Pollitt Worden, Stephen D.Mastrofski, and Roger B. Parks.

Appendix A. Individual survey items

Decision-Making (2 items):1. When you are on the scene of an incident with

your officm, how frequently do you tell themhow to handle the incident? Never [I], rarely[2], sometimes [3], or often [4]

R.s. Engel/Journal of Criminal Ju.~t;ce 29 (2001) 341-3$5 3.13

3. Handling calls for service to their assigned area.4. Making arrests and issuing citations.

2. When you are on the scene, how fre-quently do you take it over and handle theincident yourself!

Level of Activity/Relative Distance of Supervision (2 items):

Never [I), rarely [2), sometimes [3), always [4):

I. How frequently do your officers ask you tocome to the incidents that they are handling?

2. Other than when it is required by departmentpolicy, how frequently do you go on yourown initiative to incidents that your officersare handling?

Inspirational Motivation (I item):Out of a list of ten items, indicate the three that

you think are the most important for you to performas a first-line supervisor [5], and three that are theleast important [I].

I. Helping officers to work on problems in theirassigned areas.

Expectations for Community Policing (9 items):Indicate your level of agreement with the follow-

ing: Disagree strongly [I], disagree somewhat [2],agree somewhat [3); agree strongly [4]

I. Police officers have reason to be distrustful ofmost citizens [values reversed].

2. Assisting citizens is just as important as .:u.u",ing the law.

3. A good patrol officer will try to find out whatresidents think the neighborhood problems are.

How often should patrol officers with 911 assign-ments be ex~;.;tcl1 \() do ;;()m\.'!hi!1!.: ~:!)(,~); ,.;1,:1 ,~f the

following situall()n~; N~v~r I i I. SOiTK;llffit:S 121. muchofth\.' I

Power Distribution (II items):How much influence do you usually have over each

decision: Hardly any or none [I], some [2], a lot [3].I. Which officers are assigned to your unit.2. The specific CPA or job assignments your

OffiCeTS receive.

3. Whether one of your office~ is permitted togo out of service to do problem solving orother special tasks.

4. Whether your office~ are disciplined for minorrule infmctions.

5. Whether your officers receive assignments tospecialist units when they ask for them.

6. Whether one of your office~ is authorized towork overtime.

7. Whether one of your office~ is approved foroff-duty work.

8. Your office~' prospects for promotion tohigher rank.

9. Department policies about patrol operations.Never [I], seldom [2], sometimes [3], usually [4],

always [5]10. When you have asked for resources needed

to do a job, how often have you been givenwhat you requested?

II. When you have made decisions about how todo patrol operations, how often have yourdecisions been supported by higher-ups?

Relations-Orientation I (one item):I. How many office~ in your unit would you

consider to be your friends? None [I], a few[2], about half [3], all or most [4].

Relations-Orientation 2 (one item):Out of a list of ten items, indicate the three that

you think are the most important for you to performas a fi~t-line supervisor [5], and three that are theleast important [I].

I. Protecting subordinates from unfair criticismor punishment.

Task-Orientation (4 items):Out of a list of ten items, indicate the three that

you think are the most important for you to performas a fi~t-line supervisor [5], and three that are theleast important [I].

I. Making sure that reports are properly com-pleted.

2. Enforcing department rules and regulations.Out of a list of 7 goals indicate the two you

believe are the most important for patrol officers with911 assignments [5], and two that you think are theleast important [I].

4. Publl'; ,..., ;~ I.IV~u t'~ ~~.), """"".0 ""D"J

5. Neighbor dispu(\:s6. Family disputes1. Litter and tnsh8. Parents who oon't control their kids9. Nuisance businesses that cause lot... 01 I "b-

lems for neighborsExpectations for Aggressive Enforcement (3 items):Indicate your level of agreement with the follow-

ing: Disagree strongly [I), disagree somewhat [2),agree somewhat [3]; agree strongly [4)

I. Enforcing the law is by far the patrol officer'smost important responsibility.

2. A good patrol officer is one who patrolsaggressively by stopping cars. checking outpeople, nmning license checks, and so forth.

Out of a list of 1 goals indicate the two youbelieve are the most important for patrol officers with911 assignments [5). and two that you think are theleast important [I).

3. Making arrests and issuing citations.

354 R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal JllSlk-e 29 (200J) 34J-35J

Notes

I. Supervision was prevjously organized as a "squadsystem," where one sergeant was directly responsible for afixed group of officers who worked the same schedule. Aftera change in administrative peI!Onnel. SPPD implemented asupervisory structure that focused on geognlphic deploy-ment. Each sergeant in the department was 8S.'iigned to aparticular geographic area (CPA) that they were directlyresponsible for. As a result. sergeants were responsible forsupervising patrol officers and community policing officerswho were assigned to their areas across every shift. Afterabout a year, this structure of supervision was reorganizedbecause of the unrealistic demands it placed on sefieants.

2. SuperviSOR were excluded from the analyses if theywere not both interviewed and observed (sixteen sergeantsand lieutenants from IPD and three sefieants from SPPD).Also, eight patrol officers acting as temporal sergeants inSPPD were excluded as were all the lieutenants from thisdepartment. Lieutenants from SPPD did not engage in directfield observation of subordinate officers.

3. Specific items with serious questions regardingtheir reliability or validity were eliminated from thecomposite scale measures. Where appropriate, a single itemwas used to represent an attitudinal dimension rather thanan additive scale.

4. The two relations-orientation items did not stronglycorrelate (Pearson's r =.11) and reliability analysis suggestedthat they do not belong in an additive scale (a coeffi-cient =.19). At face value, the items tap different issues. Thenumber of officers that superviSOfS consider their friendsdoes not appear to influence their reported importance ofprotecting officers from unfair criticism or punishment. As aresult. these two items are entered separately in analyses,with both rqxesenting different aspects of the relations-orientation construct.

5. This factor analysis is performed using the max-imum likelihood extraction technique because its overallobjcctive is "to find the factor solution which would best fitthe observed correlations" (Kim & Mueller, 1978, p. 23).An oblique rotation method (direct oblimin) is selectedbecause "it does not arbitrarily impose the restriction thatfactors be uncorre1ated" (Kim & Mueller, 1978, p. 37). For amore detailed information on extraction and rotationmethods, see Kim and Mueller (1978).

6. For this and all subsequent quotes from supervisors,references to gender were reported in masculine form tofurther protect the identities of supervisors.

References

Aldag, R. J., &. Brief, A. P. (1978). Supervisory style and~Iice roleslras. Journal of Police Science and Admin-Istration, 6, 362-367.

Allen, D. (1980). Street-level police supervision: the effectof supervision on police officer activities, agency out-puts, and neighbortKJOd outcomes. PhD dissertation, In-diana University. Ann Arbor, MI: UniversityMicrofilms International.

Allen, D. (1982). Police supervision on the street: an analysisof supcrvjsor/officer interaction during the shift. Journal

ofCriminDl Justice, 10,91-109.Allen, D., & Maxfield, M. (1~83). Judging police perform-

ance: views and behavior of patrol officers. In: R. Ben-nett (Ed.), Police at work: poli')' issues and anai}..~i.~(pp. 65-86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and peifomumce ~~ndexpectations. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Ba.~s and Stogdill's handbook of leader-ship: theory. resean:h and managerial applications (3rdcd.). New York: F~ Pras.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organiza-tional effectiveness through Iransfonnationalleadership.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1918). The new managerialgrid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Brehm. J.. & Gates, S. (1993). Donut shops and speed traps:evaluating models of supervision on police behavior.American Journal of Occupational and OrganizationalPs.vchology, 67, 69- 78.

Brief. A. P., Aldag, R. J., & Wallden, R. A. (1976). Corre-lates of supervisory style among policemen. CriminalJustice and Behavior, 3, 263-271.

Brown, M. K. (1988). Working the stn!el: police discre-tion and the dilemmas of ~form. New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Christopher Commission. (1991). R~port of the indept'ndentcommissi()n on the Los Angeles Police Department. LosAngels, CA: The Commission.

Cohen, B. (1980). Leadership styles of commanders in theNew York City police depanrDCnt. Journal ~r PoliceScience and Administration, 8. 125 - 138.

Crank, J. P. (1998). Understandingpalice cullu~. Cincinnati.OH: Anderson Publishing.

Engel, R. S. (2(XX)a). Patrol officer supervision in thecommunity policing era. Journal of Criminal JIL~tice

(forthcoming).Engel. R. S. (2000b). The effects of supervisory styles on

patrol officer behavior. Police Quarterly, 3(3). 262-293.French, J., & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of social

power. In: D. Cartwright. & A. F. Zander (Eds.).Group dynamics (2nd cd.) pp. 607 - 623). Evanston:

Row. Peterson, and Company.Gates, S., & Worden. R. (1989). Principle-agent models of

hierarchical control in public bureaucracies: work.shirking. and supervision in police ag~ncies. 1989 An-nual Meeting of the American Political Science Associ-ation. at the Atlanta Hilton and Towers, August 31 -

September 3..Graham, C. B. Jr.. & Hays, S. W. (1993). Managing the

public organization (2nd cd.). Washington, DC: Con-gres.'iional Quarterly Press.

Halpin, A. W., & Winer, B. J. (1957). A factorial study ofdie leader behavior descriptions. In: R. M. Stogdill, &A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior: its descriptionand measurement-51). Columbus, OH: Ohio StateUniversity, Bureau of Business Research.

Hemphill. J. K., & Coons, A. E. (1957). Development of

the leader behavior description questionnaire. In: R.M., Stogdill, & A. E. Coons (Eds.), Leader behavior:

R.S. Engel/Journal of Criminal Justice 29 (2001) 341-355 355

it, description and mea.furenlent-38). Columbus, OH:Ohio State University, BUIQU of Business Resean:h.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988). Management of or-ganizational behavior (5th cd.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Jennier, J. M., & Berkes, L. J. (1979). Leader behavior in apolice command bureaucracy: a closer k>ok at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science Quarterly 24,I 23.

Kappeler, v: E., Sluder, R. D., & Alpert G. P. (1998) Forr:esof deviance: understanding the dark side of policing.(2nd 00.) Prospect Heights, IL.: Waveland Press

Kim, J., & Mucller, C. W. (1978). Factor analysis stat-istical method! and practical issues. Newbury Park:Sage Publications.

Kuykendall, J. L. (1977). Police leadership: an anal~;s ofexecutive styles. Criminal Justice Review, 2, 89-100.

Kuykendall, J. L. (1985). Police managerial styles: a gridanalysis. American Journal of Police, 4, 38- 70.

Kuykendall, J. L., & Roberg, R. R. (1988). Police managers'perceptions of employee types: a conceptual model.Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 131-137.

Kuykendall, J. L., &. Unsinger, P. (1982). The leadershipstyles of police managers. Journal of Criminal Justice,

4,311-321.Lewin, K., & Lippitt, R. (1938). An experimental approach

to the study of autocrxy and democracy: a preliminarynote. Sociometry, I, 292 - 300.

Lewin, K., Lippin, R., & White, R. K. (1939) .Patterns ofaggressive behavior in experimentally created social cli-mates Journal of Social Psychology 10. 271 - 30 I.

Manning, P. K. (1977). Police work. Cambridge, MA:M IT Press.

Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J.B., Parks, R. B., & Maxwell, C. D.(2000). The helping hand of the law: Police control ofcitizens on request. Criminology. 38(2), 307 - 342.

Mastrofski, S. M., Rini, R. R., & Snipes, J. B. (1994). Ex-pectancy theory and police productivity in DUl enforce-ment. Law and Society Review 28. 113-148

McGregor, D. M. (1957). The human side of enterprise. In:J. M. Shafritz, & A. C. Hyde (Eds.), Classics of publicadministration (3m ed.) (pp. 217-223). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth Publishing.

McGregor, D. M. (1960). 77Ie human side O;f enterpri.~e.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mollen Commission to Investigate Allegations of PoliceCorruption. (1994). Commission report. New York:The Mollen Commission.

Muir, W. K. Jr. (1977). Police: ~t comer politician.~.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.~

Pari(s, R. B., Mastrofski, Muir, S. D., Dejong, C., Gray, M.K. (1999). How officers spend their time with the c0m-munity. Ju.'tice Quarterly, /6, 483-518.

Pursley, R. D. (1974). Leadership and community identifi-cation attitudes among two categories of police chiefs:an exploratory inquiry. JoumQl of Police Sc'ience and

Administration, 2,414-422.Reiss, A. J. Jr. (1971). The police and the public. New

Haven, CT: Yale.Reuss-Ianni, E., & Ianni, F. (1983). Street cops and manage-

~t cops: the two eul~ of policing. In: M. PunehControl in the police organization ( pp. 25 I - 274). Cam-

bridge, MA: MIT ~.Rubinstein, J. (1973). Citypo/ice. New York: Ballantine.SheJ'ard, R. L. (1999). Street level supervision: styles of

patrol supervison and their effects on patrol officer be-havior. PhD dissertation, University at Albany. AnnArbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

Skolniek,J. H., & Fyfe,J. J. (1993). Ahove the law: police andthe excessive use offon'e. New York, NY: Free Press.

Smith, D. (1984). The organizational context of legal con-trol. Criminology, 22, 19-38.

Southerland, M. D., & Reuss-Ianni, E. (1992). Leadershipand management. In: Cordner G. W., & Hale D. C. Whatworks in po/icing? Op('ration., and administration exam-ined (pp. 157-177). Highland Heights, KY: Academyof Criminal Justiee Sciences and Anderson Publishing.

Swanson, C. R., & Te1Tito, L. (1982). Police leadenhip andinterpersonal communication styles. In: J. Greene (Ed.),Managing police work ( pp. 123-139). Beverly Hills,CA: Sage Publication.~.

Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. (1958). How tochoose a leadership pattern. HarvaFd Swine-u Review,36. 95-10/.

Tift\, L. (1971). Comparative police supervision systems: anorganizational analysis. PhD dissertation, University ofnlinois at Urbana-Charnpaign. Ann Arbor, MI: Univer-sity Microfilms International.

Trojanowicz, R. C. (1980). The environment of the first-linepolice supervisor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: ~nticc-Hall.

Van Maanen, J. (1983). The boss: first-line supervision in anAmerican police agency. In: M. Punch (Ed.), Control inthe police organization (pp. 275 - 317). Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.Van Maanen, J. (1984). Making rank: becoming an Ameri-

can police sergeant. Urban Life, 13, 155-176.Wilson, J. Q. (1968). Varieli£3 of po/ice behavior. Cam-

bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Yuki, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations (2nd ed.).

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.