Work Based Project In Policing - National Police Library ...library.college.police.uk/docs/Opportunities-to... · Web viewBefore data collection commenced, ethical approval was gained

“What Should I Do Sarge?” - Opportunities to Develop Decision

Makers at PC & PCSO Rank

Mark Brennan

[email protected]

BA (Hons) Criminology and Criminal Justice – Policing

Health and Life Sciences, De Montfort University

June 2014

1

Declaration

Except where due acknowledgements have been made, this work is my own. The

work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other

assessment. The content of this thesis is the result of work which has been carried

out since the official commencement date of this approved research programme.

Any editorial work, paid or unpaid carried out by a third party, including study and

learning advisors, is acknowledged.

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my Academic Tutor Annette Crisp for her ongoing guidance

during this research.

I would also like to thank the Head of Learning and Development for Leicestershire

Police, Sarah Pinner, for sponsoring this research and the Chief Inspector Rosie

Grant, for authorising its completion.

I would like to thank Dick Clancy for his guidance on the internal leadership strategy

for Leicestershire Police and Jo Ingall for her assistance in placing the research

questionnaire into an online format.

I would like to thank my line managers, specifically DI Mark Parish and Mr Barney

Thorne for their support and assistance in allowing me to complete this research

while balancing operational commitments.

Finally I would like to thank my partner Rachel and my family for their close

emotional and practical support to allow me to complete this research.

3

Contents

“What Should I Do Sarge?” - Opportunities to Develop Decision Makers at PC & PCSO Rank

Abstract 8

List of Figures 10

List of Tables 15

Chapter 1 – Introduction 161.1 - The requirements for self-confident decision makers throughout 16

the organisation

1.2 - Research objectives and research questions 16

1.3 – Research methodology 17

1.4 – Research findings and implications 17

1.5 – Structure of research report 18

Chapter 2 - Literature Review 192.1 – Literature review questions 19

2.2 – Literature review methodology 19

2.3 - What leadership styles are used by sergeants within police

organisations? 20

4

2.3.1 - Transformational Leadership 20

2.3.2 - Transactional Leadership 23

2.3.3 - Laissez-Faire Leadership 23

2.3.4 - Distribution of leadership styles 23

2.3.5 – Summary 24

2.4 - What effects do these leadership styles have on subordinate self-con-

fidence in decision-making? 25

Chapter 3 – Methodology 263.1 - Research Approach 26

3.2 - Research Design 26

3.3 – Research Sample 26

3.3.1 - Response Rate 30

3.4 - The Pilot Project 31

3.5 - Research Methods 33

3.6 - Research Measures 33

3.7 - Research Analysis 34

3.7.1 - Statistical significance 36

3.8 - Other methodological issues 37

3.9 - Ethical and data protection issues 37

Chapter 4 – Results 39

5

4.1 - Research Question 1) - To what extent are transformational, transactional

and laissez-faire leadership styles used by sergeants within police organisations

39

4.2 - Research Question 1a) - How does this vary due to gender, length of

service and type of deployment of the subordinate? 41

4.3 - Research Question 2): What is the relationship between

transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and

subordinate self-confidence in decision-making? 55

4.4 - Research Question 2a): How does this vary due to gender, length of


Chapter 5 – Discussion 725.1 - Research Question 1) - To what extents are transformational, transac-

tional and laissez-faire leadership styles used by sergeants within police or-

ganisations? 72

5.2 - Research Question 1a: How does this vary due to gender, length of


5.3 - Research Question 2): What is the relationship between

transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and

subordinate self-confidence in decision-making? 75

5.4 - Research Question 2a) - How does this vary due to gender, length of


5.5 - The Effect of Methodology 86

5.5.1 - Research Approach 86

5.5.2 - Research Design 86

6

5.5.3 - Research Sample 87

5.5.4 - Research Methods 87

5.6 Conclusion, Implications & Recommendations 88

5.7 – Future Improvements 90

References 91

Appendices 94

7

Abstract

In today’s policing environment, staff at lower levels of the organisation have to feel

confident to make well-considered, independent decisions without the need to refer

them upwards to an ever-decreasing number of supervisors. This research

attempted to stimulate organisational change to develop the decision making self-

confidence of PC and PCSOs within Leicestershire Police. It attempted to do this by

identifying the distribution of leadership styles used by sergeants within the

organisation, as well as testing the relationship between leadership style and self-

confidence in decision-making of the subordinate. It also went beyond previous

literature to identify how these relationships varied due to gender, length of service

and type of deployment.

Research took a quantitative approach, employing a cross-sectional design of 255

PCs and PCSOs based within the City and County Basic Command Units (BCUs)

within Leicestershire Police. The method of research was an anonymous self-

completion questionnaire administered to the organisation e-mail account of

respondents in April 2013. Respondents were required to assess the extent to which

their main first-line supervisor possessed a number of leadership qualities, as well as

the extent of their confidence to make their own decisions. Descriptive statistics,

independent t-tests and Pearson correlation coefficient statistics were generated

using the Statistics Package for Social Scientists (SPSS), to identify evidence in

relation to the research questions.

Results suggest that the on the whole sergeants in the organisation are using

appropriate transformational and transactional behaviours according to the needs of

their staff. All transformational behaviours and the transactional behaviour of

rewarding individuals were significantly and positively related with self-confidence to

8

make decisions, although the size of correlations suggests that there are other

contributing factors.

To achieve improvement the organisation should attempt to identify “laissez-faire”

leaders to focus improvement efforts, either via training or dealing with inadequate

performance. Furthermore, sergeants could consider more “coaching” styles of

leadership particularly amongst PCSOs, as well as some specific behaviours aimed at

those with 0-2 years, 3-10 years and those with 21+ years of service.

Research also presented possible organisational improvements, including regular

supervision appointments between line manager (or sergeant qualified PCs) and

subordinate, personal mentors for PCSOs, methods for highlighting good practice,

annual 360 feedback of sergeants’ leadership behaviour, specific training and internal

communications.

In the future, qualitative research could identify the intricacy in these relationships to

fully understand and to realise further potential benefits for teams’ self-confidence to

make decisions.

9

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 – Deployment breakdown of respondents in research sample

Figure 3.2 – Gender breakdown of respondents in research sample

Figure 3.3 – Length of service breakdown of respondents in research sample

Figure 3.4 – Rank breakdown of respondents in research sample

Figure 4.1 – Mean agreement scores for whole research sample on 10 transformational

leadership qualities

Figure 4.2 – Mean agreement scores for whole research sample on 3 transactional


Figure 4.3 – Predominant leadership style reported in whole research sample

Figure 4.4 – Predominant leadership style reported by role deployment

Figure 4.5 – Predominant leadership style reported by gender

Figure 4.6 – Predominant leadership style reported by length of service

Figure 4.7 – Predominant leadership style reported by rank

Figure 4.8 – Mean agreement scores for PCSOs, PCs and whole sample on

reprimanding styles from sergeants

10

Figure 4.9 – Mean agreement scores by length of service on sergeant attempting to

improve abilities

Figure 4.10 – Mean agreement scores by length of service on sergeant giving good

advice

Figure 4.11 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant was

approachable

Figure 4.12 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant motivated

respondents

Figure 4.13 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant has earned

respondents’ respect

Figure 4.14 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant encourages

respondent to learn from mistakes

Figure 4.15 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant supports

respondent if they make a mistake

Figure 4.16 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant tells

respondent what to do

Figure 4.17 – Mean agreement score that respondent was confident to make their

own decisions, by predominant leadership style reported.

Figure 4.18 – Correlation scores between self- confidence in decision making and the 10

transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities

11

Figure 4.19 – Correlation scores between self-confidence in decision making and

predominant leadership style reported

Figure 4.20 – Correlation scores between self-confidence in decision making and the 10

transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (response

sample)

Figure 4.21 – Correlation scores between self-confidence in decision making and the

10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (SNT

sample)


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (fe-

male sample)


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities

(male sample)


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (0-2

years of service sample)





10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (11-

20 years of service sample)

12


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (21+



10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (PC

sample)



(PCSO sample)



years of service sample controlling for rank)

Figure 5.2 – Correlations score between rewarding the respondent and self-confid-

ence in decision making by length of service

Figure 5.3 – Correlations score between reprimanding the respondent and self-con-

fidence in decision making by length of service

Figure 5.4 – Correlation scores between giving the respondent good advice and self-

confidence in decision making by length of service




13

Figure 5.6 –Correlation scores between self-confidence in decision making and the

10 transformational leadership qualities and 2 transactional leadership qualities by

rank



(PCSO sample controlling for length of service)

14

List of Tables

Table 3.1 – Comparisons between force strength (PC or PCSO rank) and sampling

frame size

Table 3.2 – Reminder links sent to main survey and effect on response rate

15

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 - The requirements for self-confident decision makers throughout the

organisation

In his 2011 Home Office commissioned “Review of Police Leadership and Training”,

Peter Neyroud states that the Coalition government’s proposed reforms, summarised

in the Home Office paper “Policing in the 21st Century” (Home Office, 2010), “will

impact on leadership and training at all levels” (Home Office, 2011:25). One

overarching aspect of these reforms is that of budgetary constraint which has led to

“a culling of middle and senior management posts.” (Neyroud, 2011:353).

Leicestershire Police recognised this, identifying “Ensuring the effective and efficient

use of resources at all times” as one of the five key values of the organisation. In

this context staff at lower levels of the organisation have to feel confident to make

well-considered, independent decisions without the need to refer them upwards to an

ever-decreasing number of supervisors. This has in turn driven the identification of a

systematic leadership strategy within Leicestershire Police, with a chief aim of

developing leaders at all levels, by realising another key value of the organisation of

“Trusting our people to provide a quality service”.

1.2 – Research objectives and research questions

This research attempted to contribute to this systematic leadership strategy by

producing primary research to answer the following research questions which were

generated after a literature review of previous research:

1) To what extent are transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership

styles used by sergeants?

16

1a) How does this vary due to gender, length of service and type of deployment

of the subordinate?

It was hypothesised that there would be evidence of the use of “transformational

leadership”, “transactional leadership” and “laissez-faire leadership” styles. Previous

research had not identified whether this would vary due to gender, length of service

and type of deployment of the subordinate, so hypotheses were not made in relation

to this aspect.

2) What is the relationship between transformational, transactional and laissez-

faire leadership styles and subordinate self-confidence in decision-making

and;

2a) How does this vary due to gender, length of service and type of deployment

of the subordinate?

It was hypothesised that there would be a positive statistical relationship between

“transformational leadership” and “self-confidence in decision-making”. Again

previous research had not identified whether this would vary due to gender, length of

service and type of deployment of the subordinate, so hypotheses were not made in

relation to this aspect.

1.3 – Research methodology

Research took a quantitative approach, employing a cross sectional design of 255

PCs and PCSOs based within the City and County BCUs within Leicestershire

Police. The method of research was an anonymous self-completion questionnaire

administered to the organisation e-mail account of respondents in April 2013.

Respondents were required to assess the extent to which their main first-line

supervisor possessed a number of leadership qualities, as well as the extent of their

confidence to make their own decisions. Descriptive statistics, independent t-tests

and Pearson correlation coefficient statistics were generated using the Statistics

Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) to identify evidence in relation to the research

questions.

17

1.4 – Research findings and implications

Results suggest that the on the whole sergeants in the organisation are using

appropriate transformational and transactional behaviours according to the needs of

their staff. All transformational behaviours and the transactional behaviour of

rewarding individuals were significantly and positively related with self-confidence to

make decisions, although the size of correlations suggests that there are other

contributing factors.

To achieve improvement the organisation should attempt to identify “laissez-faire”

leaders to focus improvement efforts, either via training or dealing with inadequate

performance. Furthermore, sergeants could consider more “coaching” styles of

leadership particularly amongst PCSOs, as well as some specific behaviours aimed at

those with 0-2 years, 3-10 years and those with 21+ years of service.

Research also presented possible organisational improvements, including regular

supervision appointments between line manager (or sergeant qualified PCs) and

subordinate, personal mentors for PCSOs, methods for highlighting good practice,

annual 360 feedback of sergeants’ leadership behaviour, specific training and internal

communications.

1.5 – Structure of research report

This research report will first summarise previous research in this area and explain

how this led to the formulation of the research questions. It will explain the methodo-

logical approach taken, while at the same time discussing the potential benefits and

pitfalls of the approach. The report will then summarise key results in relation to the

research questions, employing appropriate graphs where relevant. It will then dis-

cuss the findings, relating them back to the research questions, literature review and

the methodological approach taken. Finally, the report will discuss the significance

of the findings and identify potential ways in which they can positively influence the

organisational environment.

18

Chapter 2 - Literature Review

2.1 – Literature review questions

Prior to the creation of final research questions, a literature review conceptually

collated and critically analysed previous academic research in relation to the

following two literature review questions:

1) What leadership styles are used by sergeants within police organisations?

2) What effects do these leadership styles have on subordinates’ self-confid-

ence in decision-making?

The literature review then informed the creation of the final two research questions.

2.2 – Literature review methodology

Research evidence for this review was identified through an extensive literature

search of nine electronic databases of social research literature and also the UK

national police library catalogue using specific key words related to police leadership,

supervision management and the role of sergeant (See Appendix 1.1).

Research evidence for this review was then included if it was:

1) In English

2) From academic journals or government published research, which having un-

dergone a peer review process would provide greater assurance that the res-

ults reported in the review were reliable;

3) On review of the abstract, the research reported outcome evidence from re-

search subjects using a recognised social research design and method. This

prevented the review’s validity from being biased by non-evidence based the-

oretical opinions.

19

4) On review of the abstract, the research focus included that of the first line su-

pervisor (Sergeant). It was judged that research studies based only on other

ranks could potentially distort the validity of the findings of the review due to

the fact that “each rank of senior officers had unique sets of leadership beha-

viours” (Densten, 2003:1).

5) On review of the abstract, the research reported outcome evidence from a dir-

ect assessment of supervisors’ styles. It was judged that opinions of ‘ideal’

leadership behaviours would be influenced by a combination of different ex-

periences of leadership and factors making it difficult to confidently confirm

the validity of causal links between a particular style or characteristic and a

particular outcome amongst subordinates.

6) On review of the abstract, the research reported outcome evidence relevant to

answering one or more of the literature review questions.

This literature search identified 11 research studies that met the inclusion criteria.

The reference section of each journal/report was also searched to identify any further

research studies that met the inclusion criteria, providing a further 4 studies for the

review (See Appendix 1.2 & 1.3).

2.3 - What leadership styles are used by sergeants within police organisations?

Duric (2011) cite the Full Range Leadership Model developed by Bass and Avolio

(Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass & Avolio, 1994; Avolio, 1999) which identifies three

concepts that they argue encompass the full range of leadership styles:

Transformational; Transactional and Laissez-Faire. Bass states that leaders may

exhibit a repertoire of each style from the most active (transformational) to the most

passive (laissez-faire) styles of leadership (Duric, 2011). However he adds that “the

best leaders are both transformational and transactional.” (Duric, 2011:191).

2.3.1 - Transformational Leadership

Murphy and Drodge (2004) present the only qualitative study, employing a case

study research design, using semi-structured interviews and participant observations

20

with 28 police officers (including 13 constables) within a Canadian Mounted Police

detachment. Through analysis of their data they identified evidence of the four main

aspects of transformational leadership.

These are:

- individualised consideration, which develops achievement by acting as a per-

sonal mentor or coach;

- idealised influence, which fosters trust and respect by acting as a role model;

- inspirational motivation, which fosters enthusiasm by communicating the or-

ganisation’s vision into the follower role;

- intellectual stimulation, which encourages innovation and development by

continuously challenging followers and ways of doing things.

Murphy and Drodge (2004) take an inductive view of the relationship between theory

and research, allowing the intricacies of transformational leadership to be captured

so that social phenomena observed are not reduced into a researcher’s pre-defined

hypotheses, as they would be via a deductive approach. However, the external

validity of the method is a weakness, in that due to the limited number of

respondents it is not possible to prove that the relationships identified have truth

beyond the individual study (Bryman, 2008). Despite the weakness of this approach,

much larger scale research studies employing a quantitative approach have similarly

identified evidence of “transformational leadership”.

Dobby et al (2004) take this approach, utilising a cross-sectional design and

research method using the extensively validated Transformational Leadership

Questionnaire (TLQ) (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe, 2000, 2001) to identify the

presence of transformation leadership behaviours amongst supervisors from a

sample of 1,066 officers and police staff (made up of 130 officers and staff who were

led by police sergeants) from all ranks within 36 forces in the UK. The TLQ is a UK

developed survey instrument which developed measures of “transformational

leadership” through factor analysis. It asks respondents about their level of

21

agreement of a 6 point Likert scale in relation to 111 statements which relate to 14

separate components of the concept ‘transformational leadership. These are:

- Genuine concern for others’ well-being and development;

- Empowers, delegates, develops potential;

- Transparency, honesty, consistency;

- Integrity and openness to ideas and advice;

- Accessible, approachable;

- Inspirational communicator, networker and achiever;

- Unites through a joint vision;

- Clarifies individual and team direction, priorities and purposes;

- Creates a supportive learning and self-development environment;

- Manages change sensitively and skilfully;

- Charismatic, in-touch;

- Encourages questioning and critical and strategic thinking;

- Analytical and creative thinker;

- Decisive/risk-taking.

A strength of this research design and method is that it allows reliability testing of the

internal consistency of the components of this scale. Alpha coefficients above 0.85

were found for all of the above components (Alimo-Metcalfe and Alban-Metcalfe,

2001) which, being above 0.8, would indicate a satisfactory level of internal

consistency (Howitt and Cramer, 2003). This means that each individual

questionnaire item accurately measures one of the 14 overall scale measures of the

concept transformational leadership.

Further quantitative evidence of this style is provided by Hawkins and Dulewicz’s

(2009) identification of an “engaging” leadership style; Raus et al’s (2012)

identification of “Democratic leaders”; Engels (2001) identification of “innovative” and

“supportive leaders” and Jermier and Berkes’ (1979) identification of “Supportive

leadership” and “Participative leadership”.

22

2.3.2 - Transactional leadership

Duric, (2011) discusses Bass and Aviolo’s three components of transactional

leadership which are:

- “Contingent reward” where the leader clarifies roles and tries to motivate

through providing extrinsic rewards and punishments (Dobby et al 2004); this

concept corresponds with Jermier and Berkes (1979) concept of ‘instrumental

leadership’; Hawkins and Dulewicz’s (2009) concept of ‘involving’ and ‘goal-

orientated’ leadership and Raus et al’s (2012) identification of ‘autocratic lead-

ers’.

- “Management-by-exception-active” where the leader actively monitors the

subordinate and takes action to correct mistakes or enforce standards; this

concept corresponds with Engel’s (2001) identification of ‘Traditional’ and

‘Active’ supervisors.

- “Management-by-exception-passive” where the leader only intervenes when

the follower does not meet the established criteria of the employment relation-

ship.” (Densten, 1999:47).

2.3.3 - Laissez-faire leadership

Duric (2011) identifies this as “the avoidance or absence of leadership” (2011:194).

Raus et al (2012) also identified this as a recognised leadership style in their

research.

2.3.4 - Distribution of leadership style

Dobby et al’s (2004) study identified a wide range in the use of transformational

leadership, in that one in seven officers scored less than one standard deviation

below the mean score of transformational leadership, whilst around one in eleven

scored more than one standard deviation above the mean.

23

Hawkins and Dulewicz (2009) identified that at sergeant level (N = 51), two-thirds of

respondents (66%) possess an engaging current style of leadership; Robert Engels

(2001) four main supervisory styles that were present: traditional; innovative;

supportive and active, were equally represented within the sample and Singer and

Jonas (1987) found that transformational leadership behaviours were more prevalent

than transactional behaviours in a study of 60 police officers in New Zealand.

The previous literature on this subject has not reported how this will vary due to

gender, length of service and type of deployment of the subordinate.

2.3.5 - Summary

A mix of research strategies has allowed previous research to both develop the

internal validity of these leadership concepts using a qualitative strategy but also

allowed it to test the external validity of the concept in large scale quantitative studies

that increase confidence that the concepts have relevance to wider police

organisations.

However it is clear that the focus of the research has been on the existence of

“transformational leadership” rather than the “transactional” or “laissez-faire” styles.

There has also been a lack of focus on how these styles can be used simultaneously

to various degrees by the same leader, depending on the gender, length of service

and type of deployment of the subordinate.

Furthermore, none of the above studies have focused only on leadership at the rank

of sergeant. This has meant that even the large scale studies such as Dobby et al

(2004) only include a small amount of relevant cases to the leadership style. As

discussed earlier, aggregating research results for a variety of ranks risks distorting

the validity of the findings because “each rank of senior officers had unique sets of

leadership behaviours” (Densten, 2003:1).

24

2.4 - What effects do these leadership styles have on subordinate self-confidence in

decision-making?

Previous literature using a quantitative research strategy consistently identifies a

strong, independent, statistically significant and positive correlation between

transformational leadership qualities of a supervisor and organisational commitment

of subordinates (Dobby et al. (2004); Metcalfe and Dick (2000; 2001); Dick (2010);

Brunetto and Wharton (2003); Hawkins and Dulewicz (2009); Jermier and Berkes

(1979); Engels (2001)) job motivation (Adebayo (2005)); and job satisfaction (Brough

and Frame (2004) Brunetto et al. (2000);. However, there is only one study which

attempted to measure any relationship between these leadership styles and

subordinate self-confidence.

Dobby et al. (2004) found a statistically significant positive correlation between

‘Transformational Leadership’ and “self-confidence” (between 0.63 and 0.88, where

1.0 is a perfect correspondence). Furthermore the dimension “genuine concern for

others’ well-being and development” correlated above 0.85 for these two

psychological outcomes amongst others. However the measurement scale “self-

confidence” does not relate exactly to the research question of this study, which

wishes to focus on self-confidence in decision making. It is conceivable that a

research subject could be self-confident but not self-confident in terms of their

decision making. Furthermore, due to its cross-sectional research design deciding

the direction of causality, is not possible to prove that “transformational leadership”

causes increased “self-confidence” any more than it is possible to prove that “self-

confidence” causes increased “transformational leadership”. It could be quite

possible that if police subordinates exhibit more self-confidence then their supervisor

may exhibit more transformational behaviours towards them because of it. This

problem is exacerbated by a lack of research strategies that utilise a qualitative

strategy.

25

Chapter 3 - Methodology

3.1 - Research approach

This study took a quantitative approach allowing for the hypotheses based on the

literature review to be tested via the process of data collection, leading to statistical

findings that either confirmed or rejected the hypothesis. It was intended that the

results would then lead to a revision of theory that can be fed back to the body of

literature, in the form of a final report.

A strength of quantitative research strategies is that they often allow statistics on the

strength of the relationship between two or more concepts to be measured (Bryman,

2008). This approach is necessary given that the research questions aimed to

quantify the existence of certain factors and to identify whether relationships

between them exist.

3.2 - Research design

The study employed a cross-sectional design which involves the study of more than

one case at a single point in time (Bryman, 2008). A key benefit of this design is the

greater external validity of the results, meaning that they can be generalised to the

wider organisation and beyond, which was a main aim of the research.

3.3 – Research sample

The varying organisational roles and management structure of a number of smaller

teams within the organisation could not all be accurately represented due to the

likelihood that, as with most surveys of this kind, response rates would be limited.

Therefore it was decided to focus limited research resources on these two roles

(PCs and PCSOs) that have the widest use in the organisation.

The sample was intended to consist of all PCs and PCSOs based within the City and

County Basic Command Units (BCUs). Table 3.1 shows that statistics on force

strength calculated on July 31st 2013 calculated 1,004 PCs and 224 PCSOs in these

BCUs. However it was not possible to gain a complete sampling frame of collar

26

numbers of potential respondents, and therefore e-mail address groups for the

relevant groups had to be utilised when the first survey link was sent.

This frame did have some weaknesses. Firstly this was not a complete sampling

frame as not all relevant sub-departments had their own e-mail address. This was

shown to be with the case with the e-mail sampling frame being made up of 1,085

respondents (627 City BCU, 458 County BCU) compared to force strength calculated

on July 31st 2013 identifying 1,228 respondents (587 City BCU, 641 County BCU).

Table 3.1 below also shows that the sample frame also over-represented City BCU

officers compared to County BCU officers.

Table 3.1 – Comparisons between force strength (PC or PCSO Rank) and sampling

frame size

Force strength (calculated on July 31st

2013)

Sample frame (calculated on August 26th

2013)

City BCU County BCU City BCU County BCU

587 641 627 458

Total Total

1,228 1,085

Despite this, there were no structural issues within the frame that meant particular

key groups under study (officers in response or safer neighbourhood roles, PC and

PCSO ranks, males or females, officers with particular years of experience) would be

significantly under-represented thus making research using these groups impossible.

Figures 3.1 – 3.4 show that although SNT officers, males, those with 3-10 years

levels of service and PCs were over-represented, significant numbers of

respondents from each of the other relevant groups were included to make analysis

possible. The discussion section will consider whether the under-representation of

any particular group leads to greater risk of bias in the results obtained.

Figure 3.1 – Deployment breakdown of respondents in research sample

27

Figure 3.2 – Gender breakdown of respondents in research sample

Figure 3.3 – Length of service breakdown of respondents in research sample

28

Figure 3.4 – Rank breakdown of respondents in research sample

3.3.1 - Response rate

29

A key risk when considering a self-completion questionnaire is that a non-response

rate can introduce bias to results.

Table 3.2 – Reminder links sent to main survey and effect on response rate

Survey Link Sent Number Of Responses Total Response Rate

1st Link to e-mail Survey

Sent: 11/04/13 – 19/05/13

131 responses 12.1%

2nd Link to e-mail Survey

Sent: 20/05/13 – 13/06/13

199 responses 18.3%

3rd Link to e-mail Survey

Sent: 14/06/13 – 24/06/13

255 responses 23.5%

Increasing the response rate reduces the likelihood of this bias affecting results

(Bryman, 2008). As the table 3.2 shows, reminder links to the main survey

significantly increased the response rate of the survey from an initial 12.1% to

23.5%.

Another weakness was that the sampling frame also contained respondents that

were not relevant to the survey, such as higher ranks or other police staff members.

The survey sent out made it clear that it was for completion by PC or PCSO ranks

only, which would have reduced the risk of other participants completing the survey

and potentially affecting any results. However, this did present a problem in

identifying what the true response rate of the survey would have been. For example,

the fact that 627 respondents were included in the City BCU sampling frame despite

force figures stating that there were only 587 people at PC or PCSO rank within the

City BCU, shows that this the survey would have been sent out to a number of

people who it was not relevant to. Furthermore the e-mail address groups also

allowed for duplication where one respondent would be sent the e-mail on more than

one occasion due to them being present on various e-mail address groups.

Therefore, although the response rate was calculated as 23.5%, it is anticipated that

30

due to these issues the true response rate would be somewhat larger, because for

many the e-mail link would not have been relevant.

Mangione (1995), as quoted in Bryman (2012) would state that a response rate to a

survey of below 50% would be “not acceptable” (Bryman, 2012:235). Bryman on the

other hand tempers this summary with the comment that although low-response

rates are not ideal “the key point is to recognise and acknowledge the implications of

the possible limitations of a low response rate” (2012:235). The implication that

Bryman refers to is the greater risk of bias in the result, due to this non-response.

For example in this study it could be hypothesised that individuals who are indifferent

about their sergeant’s behaviour would be less likely to complete a survey which

asks for assessment of those behaviours. This could lead to the extremes of the

relationship being captured, presenting a risk that the final result over-estimates the

strength of any relationships. The results section will take this potential for “non-

response bias” into account when analysing the results, in the discussion section.

Two direct responses to the researcher were received which highlighted that at the

time of the survey being sent, some SNT staff would not be able to identify a

particular sergeant who was directly managing them. This was due to the sergeants

working different shift patterns to some of their staff during a shift pattern re-

alignment. This therefore may have caused the response rate to be lower.

3.4 - The pilot project

To identify and eliminate any practical problems with questionnaire structure and

understanding, as well as to eliminate unnecessary measures, a pilot questionnaire was

created that included 25 questions concerning the respondent’s agreement that their

sergeant possesses certain transformational qualities, 4 questions in the same format

concerned with transactional qualities, and 10 questions concerning the respondents’

self-confidence in decision making (See appendix 2.2).

31

The main difference between this survey and the pilot survey in the original proposal

(see appendix 2.1) was the inclusion of additional questions concerning transformational

qualities such as: encouraging leadership, appreciation of work completed, the setting of

high standards, fairness, motivation, enthusiasm, can-do attitude, making good

decisions, giving good advice, support if a mistake is made, respect and being good at

their job. These questions were included to make the pilot survey reflected more

thoroughly on the 14 transformational values identified by Dobby et al (2004).

Between October and November 2012 the pilot survey was sent out to 19 members of

staff within a “Delivering Justice Directorate Department” via an electronic link sent via

e-mail to the personal police e-mail account of the recipient. This department was

chosen because it was the department of the researcher and offered practical

advantages in obtaining consent to conduct the pilot survey, due to an existing working

relationship with the Detective Inspector in charge of the department. Furthermore, the

respondents would not be included in the final survey sample. Prior permission to send

this survey was gained from the Detective Inspector in charge of the department in

September 2012. The first e-mail invitation to complete the survey was sent on 2nd

October 2012. There followed further reminders sent on 18th October 2012 and 14th

October 2012. In total 14 responses were received, calculating as a response rate of

73.7%.

Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient scores were used to test the

internal reliability of the questions used to measure the key concepts of transformational

leadership, transactional leadership and confidence in decision making. The 25

transformational questions had a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.97, which being above

0.8 would indicate a high level of internal consistency that those questions are

measuring the same concept (Howitt and Cramer, 2003). Likewise the 4 transactional

questions has a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.79, and the 10 questions concerning self-

confidence in decision making had a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.75 also suggesting a

relatively high level of internal consistency.

However for practical reasons the number of questions in the final survey had to be

reduced to make it quicker and therefore more likely to be completed. Subsequently,

32

theoretical criteria, based on which measures were likely to be correlated in the main

study, were used to identify measures for each key concept. The measures used are

discussed in section 3.6

3.5 - Research methods

The research method used was a self-completion questionnaire administered to the

organisation e-mail account of respondents. This offered many benefits as it is was

a cheap and quick way of administering and completing the questionnaire, thus

meaning that more respondents could take part in the study.

3.6 - Research measures

In the final survey (See appendix 2.3), transformational leadership was measured by 10

statements focusing on key areas of transformational leadership, which the researcher

hypothesised would be most relevant to self-confidence in decision making, such as the

development of staff abilities, encouraging leadership in staff, encouraging individual

decision making, sergeant decision making abilities, the giving of good advice, being

approachable, motivation skills, being respected, guiding staff to learn from mistakes

and support for staff if a decision they make has negative consequences. These 10

questions retained a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.97.

Transactional leadership was measured by 3 statements focusing on key areas of

transactional leadership, measuring the relationships between being told what to do,

reward and reprimand on self-confidence in decision making. These three questions

retained a Cronbach Alpha score of 0.54 which suggests a lower level of internal

consistency than the transformational qualities. This suggests that the 3 measures are

measuring significantly different concepts that may influence self-confidence in decision-

making, differently. Therefore separate analyses will be completed in relation to these

qualities because they may uncover different relationships with self-confidence in

decision making.

Finally, self-confidence in decision making was measured by 3 questions that asked

about the respondent’s self-confidence in decision making, as well as feeling trusted and

supported to make decisions. The Cronbach’s Alpha for the 3 self-confidence in

33

decision-making measures was 0.88, suggesting a high level of internal consistency that

the questions measure the same overall concept.

Therefore the final survey consisted of 16 questions concerning these key concepts, as

well as a further four questions concerning the demographic factors of deployment,

gender, length of service and rank.

The following concepts were measured by asking respondents to assess their level

of agreement with the question by using a 5 point Likert scale rating of “strongly

disagree”, “disagree”, “neither disagree nor agree”, “agree”, “strongly agree”. These

were then coded to provide a score between 1-5 where 1 meant that the respondent

strongly agreed and 5 which meant that the respondent strongly disagreed.

Laissez-faire leadership was not directly measured as it is defined as an “absence of

leadership” (Duric, 2011). However, the research analysis section will explain the

approach taken to identify the extent of its presence.

3.7 - Research analysis

The questionnaire results were coded into numerical responses and then entered

into the Statistics Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). This software package

enabled a number of analyses to be completed which allowed the research

questions and hypothesis to be tested using statistical evidence.

For use in analysis, the respondent scores for the variables in the study were then

added together to create a new variable which contained their score for both

transformational and transactional leadership. It was judged that an overall score

between 1-29 would be classed as showing that the sergeant generally exhibited

transformational leadership behaviours, likewise a score between 1-8 would be

classed as showing that the sergeant generally exhibited transactional leadership

behaviours. These scores were chosen because they showed an average rating

below 2.5 per skill, suggesting that generally the sergeant possessed the relevant

qualities. A laissez-faire variable was then created by identifying those respondents

34

that both scored their sergeant above 29 for transformational leadership and above 8

for transactional leadership.

In relation to research question 1), mean scores on the 10 transformational

measures, the 3 transactional measures and the 3 self-confidence in decision-

making measures were measured. Scores could range from 1, which indicated

strong agreement with the statement across the sample, to 5 which indicated strong

disagreement with the statement across the sample. Within this range, a score of 3

or above was identified as the point indicating more disagreement than agreement

with the statement. Descriptive statistics were also created to identify the extent to

which the measured qualities of leadership were present within the sample and how

they varied due to gender, length of service, rank and type of deployment of the

subordinate.

Independent t-tests were also completed using these variables to identify whether

there was any significant difference in supervisor’s mean scores due to the gender,

length of service, rank and type of deployment of the subordinate. The reported

scores show a number of statistics including the t score, degrees of freedom, the

mean scores for each variable and most importantly the statistical significance of the

difference between the mean scores. As discussed in section 3.7.1 below, if a

difference is marked as statistically significant (usually by the symbol p<0.05 or 0.01)

then the researcher can be confident that the statistical relationship observed

between two or more variables observed actually relates to wider population and is

not due to any bias within the particular sample studied.

In relation to research question 2) Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated

for the variables of self-confidence in decision making and the measured qualities of

leadership. Comparable correlations were also completed by the gender, length of

service, rank and type of deployment of the subordinate, to identify any differences in

this relationship due to these factors. Exploratory analyses were also completed

using other variables as controls. Any relevant relationships identified were

reported. The reported scores will show a correlation score and again a level of

statistical significance of that correlation (see section 3.7.1 below). It is generally

accepted (Dancey and Reidy, 2011) that a correlation above 0.3 (where 1 indicates a

35

perfect correspondence between the variables) indicates a moderate correlation,

likely to be more than just the result of random sampling error.

Missing data was also taken into account in analysis, by having a separate code and

by recognising missing data statistics when reporting analyses.

3.7.1 - Statistical significance

Although some analyses such as frequency tables and pie charts provide

understanding of differences by sample characteristics, they do not show which

differences are statistically significant. Pearson correlation coefficient and

independent t-tests calculate whether the correlations between two variable scores

are statistically significant or not.

A test of statistical significance identifies the confidence of a researcher that the

statistical relationship observed, between two or more variables, actually relates to

wider population and is not due to any bias within the particular sample studied.

The accepted level of statistical significance used in social research is that the

relationship observed between the variables can be calculated (from the size of the

correlation and the sample) to be within the extreme 5% of scores (or 1% scores for

a greater level of confidence) if the relationship was tested an infinite number of

times. In other words there are less than 5 chances in 100 that the relationship

observed is not present within the wider population.

Statistical significance is therefore an important concept given that the research

attempted to identify relationships that could have some external validity beyond the

individual sample studied. The results and discussion will use the term “significance”

in this sense. It will be reported after the t-test and Pearson correlation scores, by

the use of p<0.05/0.01 to indicate that the score is statistically significant at the 1%

or 5% level or p> 0.05 when the score is not statistically significant.

Some non-significant correlations will be reported as the size of the correlation

makes it theoretically interesting. However, the extent to which these scores can be

externally valid, beyond this individual sample, is limited.

36

3.8 - Other methodological issues

Bryman (2012) identifies further potential biases that commonly affect research

methods, such as the self-completion questionnaire used in this study. Both of these

issues will also be considered when analysing the main results in the discussion section.

The first is acquiescence where there is a “tendency for some people to consistently

agree or disagree with a set of questions or items” (2012:227). This bias could over-

inflate the size of any correlation between the respondent’s assessment of their

sergeant’s behaviour and their assessment of their confidence to make their own

decisions, because respondents tend to consistently agree or disagree with both types

of questions.

The second is a social desirability bias where “respondent’s answers to questions are

related to their perception of the social desirability of those answers” (2012:227-228).

This could be relevant if respondents believe that their individual response is being

monitored and assessed by higher management, despite the introduction to the survey

stating that this would not occur.

3.9 - Ethical and data protection issues

Permission to research within Leicestershire Police was granted by the Chief

Inspector for Corporate Development (See Appendix 3.1). As a condition of the

permission, the researcher agreed to comply with the 1998 Data Protection Act.

Firstly the self-completion questionnaire format was structured to guarantee

anonymity for respondent and for the supervisor being reported on, by not requesting

any personal identification information. The risk of data loss was managed by

ensuring that the data was only stored electronically and only on secure, password

protected, organisational or university software.

Informed consent forms were also added to the questionnaire which explained that

participation was voluntary and that respondents were free to refuse to answer any

questions. It explained the reasons for the research, why it was important, why the

recipient had been selected, a guarantee of anonymity and that that a sanitised

37

report of the results would be disseminated amongst the organisation and how this

information can be accessed. It also provided contact details of the researcher if

there were any further questions from the respondent. This explanation had the

added benefit of increasing the response rate to questionnaires (Bryman, 2008).

Before data collection commenced, ethical approval was gained from the De

Montfort Ethics Committee.

38

Chapter 4 - Results

4.1 - Research Question 1) - To what extent are transformational, transactional and

laissez-faire leadership styles used by sergeants within police organisations

Figure 4.1 – Mean agreement scores for whole research sample on 10 transformational


Figures 4.1 and 4.2 show that all of the transformational and transactional state-

ments had a mean score below 3, showing that there was more agreement than dis-

agreement with the statement. There were greater levels of agreement with the

transformational statements of “My sergeant is approachable” (1.944); “My sergeant

will make a decision on an issue when it is required” (2.037); “My sergeant gives

good advice” (2.160) and “My sergeant encourages me to take the lead when work-

ing on an issue” (2.160). There were greater levels of disagreement with the trans-

39

formational statements of “My sergeant motivates me” (2.541) and “My sergeant at-

tempts to improve my abilities” (2.492).

Figure 4.2 – Mean agreement scores for whole research sample on 3 transactional


All three of the transactional qualities had similar levels of agreement with the mean

score being between 2.562 for the statement of “My sergeant will reprimand me if I

do something that has a bad result” and 2.679 for the statement of “My sergeant will

reward me if I do something that has a good result”.

Figure 4.3 shows that the majority of respondents (50.88%) reported their sergeant

as displaying both transformational and transactional leadership. A significant

proportion (26.32%) reported their sergeant as predominantly displaying

transformational leadership, while a small number (5.70%) reported their sergeant as

40

predominantly displaying transactional leadership. Over a sixth of respondents

(17.11%) reported their sergeant as predominantly displaying laissez-faire leadership

Figure 4.3 – Predominant leadership style reported in whole research sample

4.2 - Research Question 1a) - How does this vary due to gender, length of service

and type of deployment of the subordinate?

Figures 4.4 to 4.7 show the main differences were in the proportion of laissez-faire

leaders, which was larger in the SNT sample as opposed to in the response sample

(19.5%/13.2%), larger in the PCSO sample as opposed to in the PC sample

(20.6%/15.9%), larger in the male sample as opposed to in the female sample

(19.7%/12%) and larger in the 3-10 years of service (20.3%), with the next largest

proportion being in the 21+years sample (14.3%), followed by the 11-20 years

sample (10.5%) and then the 0-2 years sample (10%).

41

Figure 4.4 – Predominant leadership style reported by role deployment

42

Figure 4.5 – Predominant leadership style reported by gender

43

Figure 4.6 – Predominant leadership style reported by length of service

44

45

Figure 4.7 – Predominant leadership style reported by rank

46

A series of independent t-tests show that the mean scores for the following sample

characteristics are statistically significant:

Those at PCSO rank reported more reprimanding styles from sergeants than those

at PC rank.

Figure 4.8 shows the mean agreement score on this style was significantly lower

(indicating greater agreement) (t=2.096, df= 239, p<0.05) amongst those of PCSO

rank (Mean= 2.36) than that of PC rank (Mean = 2.64).

Table 4.8 – Mean agreement scores for PCSOs, PCs and whole sample on

reprimanding styles from sergeants

Those with 3-10 years and 21+ years of service reporting less positively that their

sergeant attempted to improve their abilities

47

The mean agreement score on this style was significantly lower (t=-3.452,df=

37,p<0.01) amongst those with 0-2 years service (Mean= 1.96) than those with 3-10

years service (Mean = 2.63) and than (t=-3.083,df= 41.27, p<0.05) those with 21+

years service (Mean = 2.83). Furthermore the mean was significantly lower amongst

those with 11-20 years (t=-2.966, df= 196, p<0.05) (Mean= 2.02) than those with 3-

10 years service, and than (t=-2.076, df= 63, P<0.01) those with 21+ years service.

Figure 4.9 – Mean agreement scores by length of service on sergeant attempting to

improve abilities

Those with 3-10 years and 21+ years service reporting less positively that their

sergeant gave good advice

48

Figure 4.10 – Mean agreement scores by length of service on sergeant giving good

advice

The mean agreement score on this style was significantly lower (t=-2.243, df= 193,

p< 0.05) amongst those with 11-20 years (Mean= 1.83) than those with 3-10 years

service (Mean= 2.27) and (t=-2.152, df= 62, p<0.05) than those with 21+ years

service (Mean= 2.35).

Those with 3-10 years service reporting less positively that their sergeant was

approachable

Figure 4.11 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant was

approachable

49

The mean agreement score on this style was significantly lower (t=-2.827, df=

103.10, p<0.01) amongst those with 11-20 years (Mean= 1.62) than those with 3-10

years service (Mean= 2.05).


sergeant motivated them

Figure 4.12 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant motivated

respondents

50

The mean agreement score on this style was significantly lower (t=-2.195,df= 175,

p< 0.05) amongst those with 0-2 years service (Mean= 2.09) than those with 3-10

years service (Mean = 2.68) and than (t=-2.281,df= 44, two tailed p<0.05) those with

21+ years service (Mean = 2.83). Furthermore, the mean was significantly lower (t=-

2.601, df= 194, p< 0.01) amongst those with 11-20 years service (Mean= 2.12) than

those with 3-10 years service and (t=-2.211, df= 63, p<0.05) those with 21+ years

service. The mean for the 21+ years experience group on this variable is very high

and close to the 3 point, where more officers disagree rather than agree.


sergeant had earned their respect

Figure 4.13 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant has earned

respondent’s respect

51


p<0.05) amongst those with 0-2 years service (Mean= 1.83) than those with 21+

years service (Mean = 2.57). Furthermore the mean was significantly lower (t=-

2.601, df= 194, p<0.01) amongst those with 11-20 years (Mean= 1.81) than those

with 3-10 years (Mean= 2.38) and (t=-3.092, df= 86.98, two tailed p<0.01) those with

21+ years service.


sergeant encouraged them to learn from mistakes

Figure 4.14 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant encourages

respondent to learn from mistakes

52


p<0.01) amongst those with 0-2 years service (Mean= 1.74) than those with 3-10

years service (Mean = 2.46) and significantly lower than (t=-2.322,df= 44, p<0.05)

those with 21+ years service (Mean = 2.39). Furthermore, the mean was signific-

antly lower (t=-2.696, df= 193, p<0.01) amongst those with 11-20 years (Mean=

1.93) than those with 3-10 years service.

Those with 3-10 years service reporting less positively that their sergeant supported

them if they made a mistake.

Figure 4.15 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant supports

respondent if they make a mistake

53


p< 0.01) amongst those with 11-20 years (Mean= 1.93) than those with 3-10 years

service (Mean= 2.35).

Those with 21+ years of service reporting that their sergeant told them what to do

less.

Figure 4.16 – Mean agreement scores by length of service that sergeant tells

respondent what to do

54


p<0.05) amongst those with 0-2 years service (Mean= 2.50) than those with 21+

years service (Mean = 3.13). Furthermore, the mean was significantly lower

(t=2.113, df= 148, p<0.05) amongst those with 3-10 years (Mean = 2.65) and those

with 11-20 years (t=2.792, df= 62, p<0.05) (Mean = 2.63) than those with 21+ years

service (Mean = 3.13).

4.3 - Research Question 2): What is the relationship between transformational,

transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and subordinate self-confidence in

decision-making?

Independent t-test results show that the following mean scores on self-confidence in

decision-making, displayed in figure 4.17, are statistically significant:

Those reporting a combination of transformational and transactional styles were

more confident than those who reported only transactional styles or laissez-faire

styles

55

The mean agreement score on the statement “I feel confident to make my own

decisions” was significantly greater (t= -2.557, df=12.99, p<0.05) amongst those who

reported a combination of transformational and transactional styles (Mean = 1.65)

than those who reported only transactional styles (Mean= 2.46) or (t= -2.910, df=

153, p<0.01) laissez-faire styles (Mean= 2.05).

Those reporting transformational only styles were more confident than those who

reported transactional only styles

The mean agreement score on the statement “I feel confident to make my own

decisions” was significantly greater (t= -2.274, df= 14.46, p<0.05) amongst those

who reported transformational styles only (Mean = 1.72) than those who reported

transactional styles only (Mean = 2.46).

Figure 4.17 – Mean agreement score that respondent was confident to make their

own decisions, by predominant leadership style reported.

56

Figure 4.18 shows that all of the 10 transformational qualities were significantly and

positively correlated with reporting scores on confidence to make decisions.

Although the size of the correlations were all moderate (all above 0.28) they were

slightly stronger with the qualities of support if the respondents makes a mistake (r=

0.38, p<0.01), respondents’ sergeant being approachable (r= 0.37, p<0.01), and

encouraging respondents to take the lead when working on an issue (r= 0.35,

p<0.01).

Figure 4.18 also shows that the transactional quality of rewarding respondents if they

do something that has a good result had a significant and positive correlation (r=

0.24, p<0.01) with reporting scores on confidence to make own decisions, although

the strength of the correlation was weaker than the correlations for transformational

qualities. The transactional qualities of reprimanding respondents if something has a

bad result (r= -0.01, p >0.05) and telling them what to do in their role (r= 0.10,

p>0.05) were not significantly correlated to reporting scores on confidence to make

own decisions

57

Figure 4.18 – Correlations scores between self-confidence in decision making and

the 10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities

Figure 4.19 shows that respondents that report their sergeant as displaying trans-

formational qualities were significantly more likely to report that they felt confident to

make their own decisions (r = 0.39, p<0.01). Respondents that report their sergeant

as displaying transactional qualities were also significantly more likely to report that

they felt confident to make their own decisions, although this correlation was very

weak and was only significant at the 0.05 level (r = 0.15, p<0.01). Respondents that

reported their sergeant as displaying Laissez-Faire qualities were less likely to report

that they felt confident to make their own decisions, although the relationship was not

significant (r = -0.13, p>0.05).


predominant leadership style reported

58

4.4 - Research Question 2a): How does this vary due to gender, length of service


Figure 4.20 – Correlation scores between self-confidence in decision making and the 10

transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (response

sample)

59

The main differences of note between the response sample and the SNT sample

were that:

- The transactional quality of rewarding respondents if they do something that has a

good result (r= 0.19, p> 0.05) and the transformational quality of guiding the

respondent to learn from their own mistakes (r= 0.17, p> 0.05) were not significantly

correlated to reporting scores on confidence to make decisions amongst the

response sample.

- The strength of the correlations in the response sample were weak to moderate,

although they were stronger with the qualities of support if the respondents report

that the sergeant attempts to improve their abilities (r= 0.35, p<0.01), that the

sergeant motivates them (r= 0.35, p<0.01) and the sergeant gives good advice (r=

0.33, p<0.01).

- The strength of the correlations in the SNT sample was slightly larger for all of the

10 transformational qualities, all being above 0.33. They were stronger with the

60

qualities of the sergeant supporting the respondent if they made a mistake (r= 0.45,

p<0.01), the sergeant being approachable (r= 0.41, p <0.01), the sergeant

encouraging them to take the lead on an issue (r=0.37, p<0.01). - The difference between the size of correlations between the response sample and

the SNT sample was largest for the qualities of the sergeant supporting the

respondent if they made a mistake (SNT sample correlation was 0.22 larger).


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (SNT

sample)

The main differences of note between the female and the male sample were that:

- The strength of the correlations were slightly larger in the female sample and were

all above 0.35, being particularly strong with the qualities of support if the

61

respondents report that the sergeant is approachable, (r= 0.51, p<0.01), that the

sergeant attempts to improve their abilities (r= 0.48, p<0.01) and the sergeant

motivates them (r= 0.47, p<0.01).

- Within the male sample the correlations for the transformational qualities were all

above 0.25. They were stronger with the qualities of support if the respondents

made a mistake (r= 0.34, p<0.01), that the sergeant is approachable (r= 0.32,

p<0.01) and the sergeant makes a decision if required (r= 0.31, p<0.01).

- The difference between the size of correlations between the female sample and the

male sample was largest for the qualities of the sergeant had earned the respond-

ent’s respect (female sample correlation was 0.20 larger) and the sergeant attempts

to improve the respondent’s abilities (female sample correlation was 0.20 larger).


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (fe-

male sample)

62



(male sample)

The main differences of note by length of service were that:

- Amongst the 0-2 years service level group the only quality which was significantly

correlated with self-confidence was the transactional quality of rewarding

respondents if they do something that has a good result (r= 0.57, p< 0.05). This

correlation was the largest amongst all the different levels of service. None of the 10

transformational qualities were significantly correlated with reporting scores on

confidence to make own decisions, at least at the 0.05 level. This is partly

explained by the small number of respondents in the sample making it difficult to be

confident that the results have basis beyond this individual sample.

63

- Amongst the 0-2 years service group the transformational qualities that had the

largest correlations were the qualities of the sergeant attempting to improve the

respondent’s abilities (r= 0.41, p>0.05), the sergeant making a decision if one is

required (r= 0.33, p>0.05), and the sergeant encouraging the respondent to express

their ideas on an issue (r= 0.33, p>0.05), all had strong positive correlations with

confidence to make own decisions.

- Amongst the 3-10 years service group all of the transactional and transformational

qualities were significantly correlated with self-confidence in decision making, except

the quality of reprimanding respondents if they make a mistake. The size of the

correlations for the sample were largest for the qualities of the sergeant supporting if

the respondent made a mistake (r= 0.46, p< 0.01), giving good advice (r= 0.42, p<

0.01), making a decision if required (r= 0.42, p< 0.01) and being approachable (r=

0.41, p< 0.01).

- Amongst the 11-20 years service group, the qualities which were largest and

significantly correlated with self-confidence in decision making were the qualities of

the sergeant encouraging the respondent to take the lead on an issue (r= 0.44, p<

0.01), encouraging the respondent to express their ideas on an issue (r= 0.44, p<

0.01), being approachable (r= 0.39, p< 0.05), attempting to improve the respondent’s

abilities (r= 0.38, p< 0.05) and motivating the respondent (r= 0.32, p< 0.05.

- Amongst the 11-20 years (r= 0.19, p< 0.05) and 21+ years service group (r= -0.09,

p>0.05), the transactional quality of rewarding respondents if they do something that

has a good result was not significantly correlated to reporting scores on confidence

to make own decisions.

- Amongst the 21+ years of service group, the qualities which were largest and

significantly correlated with self-confidence in decision making were the qualities of

the sergeant encouraging the respondent to take the lead on an issue (r= 0.54, p<

0.01) and motivating the respondent (r= 0.43, p< 0.05).

- The difference between the size of correlations between the service level groups

was largest for the qualities of the sergeant rewarding the respondent if something

has a good result (correlation in 0-2 years group was 0.66 higher than in 21+ years

group), the sergeant reprimanding the respondent if they do something that has a

64

bad result (correlation in 21+ years group was 0.41 higher than in 3-10 & 11-20

years group), the sergeant gives good advice (correlation ii 3-10 year group was

0.30 higher than in 11-20 years group), the sergeant is approachable (correlation

was 0.29 lower in 0-2 year group than in 3-10 years group), the sergeant tells the

respondent what to do (correlation was 0.27 higher in the 21+ year group than in the

0-2 years group), the sergeant encourages the respondent to take the lead on an

issue (correlation was 0.26 higher in 21+ years group than in the 0-2 year age

group), the sergeant supporting the respondent if they make a mistake (correlation in

3-10 years group was 0.25 higher than in 21+ years group) and if the sergeant will

make a decision if required (correlation in 3-10 years group was 0.21 higher than in

21+ years group).




65




66


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (11-

20 years of service sample)

67


10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities (21+


68

The main differences of note between the PC sample and the PCSO sample were

that:

- Amongst the PC sample, none of the transactional qualities were significantly

correlated to reporting scores on confidence to make own decisions including

rewarding respondents if they do something that has a good result (r= 0.09, p>0.05).

Also the transformational quality of the sergeant guiding the respondent to learn from

their mistakes was not significantly correlated (r=0.13, p>0.05).

- Amongst the PC sample, the qualities which were most strongly correlated to self-

confidence in decision making were the sergeant encouraging the respondent to

take the lead on an issue (r=0.24, p<0.01), the sergeant being approachable (r=0.23,

p<0.01) and the sergeant attempting to improve the respondent’s abilities (r=0.22,

p<0.01). However these correlations are weak.

69

- Amongst the PCSO sample, all of all of the transactional and transformational

qualities were significantly and positively correlated with self-confidence in decision

making, except the quality of reprimanding respondents if they did something that

had a bad result.

- Amongst the PCSO sample, the qualities which were most strongly related to self-

confidence in decision making were the qualities of the sergeant making a decision

on an issue if required (r=0.65, p<0.01), the sergeant supporting the respondent if

they make a mistake (r=0.64, p<0.01) and the sergeant motivating the respondent

(r=0.64, p<0.01).

- The difference between the size of correlations between the PCSO and the PC

sample were larger (all above 0.33) for all the qualities except the quality of

reprimanding respondents if they did something that had a bad result.


the 10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities

(PC sample)

70



(PCSO sample)

71

Chapter 5 – Discussion

5.1 - Research Question 1) - To what extent are transformational, transactional and

laissez-faire leadership styles used by sergeants within police organisations?

Figures 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 support the hypothesis and previous literature that there

would be evidence of the use of “transformational leadership”, “transactional

leadership”, as well as “laissez-faire leadership” styles, which Bass and Avolio

argued encompass the full range of leadership styles.

Figure 4.3 evidences that the majority of respondents (50.88%) identified what Duric

describes as “the best leaders” who “are both transformational and transactional,”

(Duric, 2011:191), whereas 77.20% were recognised as showing some form of

transformational leadership.

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 suggest that respondents tended to recognise a common leader-

ship style where their sergeants are less likely to tell them what to do and instead will

encourage them to take the lead on issues, while at the same time acting as a safety

net, being approachable for advice or to ultimately make a decision on an issue if re-

quired. Respondents also recognised that their sergeant would be more likely to

support and/or guide them to learn from a mistake rather than reprimand them.

However, respondents also tended to recognise that their sergeants would be less

likely to reward, reprimand, motivate them, to tell them what to do or to attempt to im-

prove their abilities. This suggests that the individualised consideration (coaching)

and inspirational motivation aspects of transformational leadership, identified by

Murphy and Drodge (2004), could be developed further.

72

5.2 - Research Question 1a: How does this vary due to gender, length of service and

type of deployment of the subordinate?

Figures 4.4 to 4.7 suggested that laissez-faire leadership behaviours were more

likely to be reported by SNT officers, PCSOs, males, and amongst those with 3-10

years or 21+ years experience. However, the only statistically significant differences

in the reported leadership style of sergeant were:

- PCSOs being more likely to report reprimanding styles;

- Those with either 3-10 years and/or 21+ years of experience being less likely

to report that their sergeant attempted to improve their abilities, gave good

advice, was approachable, motivated them, earned their respect, guided them

to learn from mistakes, supported them if they made a mistake and told them

what to do.

A lack of previous research means that there is no clear explanation for these res-

ults. One possible methodological explanation, for the significant differences

amongst those with 3-10 years and/or 21+ years’ experience, is that an acquies-

cence bias was present, where there was a “tendency for some people consistently

to agree or disagree with a set of questions or items” (2012:227) because of other

factors.

For example the 3-10 years of experience groups may be more likely to report

negatively due to a frustration with the lack of expected career progression following the

end of their probationary period, which is likely to have coincided with unprecedented

cuts and structural change within the organisation. Similarly the 21+ years of

experience group could be more likely to report negatively about a number of factors,

including their sergeants’ leadership behaviours, due to a general dissatisfaction with

recent changes in the policing structure or lack of motivation due to their likely

impending retirement.

73

Similarly PCSOs’ lack of prior operational policing experience could mean that they

interpret typical sergeant leadership behaviours as more reprimanding compared to their

PC colleagues, who are likely to be more used to them, and therefore less likely to

report negatively about them.

However, these results could reflect an actual difference in the leadership styles used by

sergeants with these groups. For example, it could be that a perceived lower status of

PCSOs within the organisation leads to the more reprimanding style reported. It could

also be that the 0-2 years of service group receive more of their sergeant’s leadership

behaviour due to their lack of operational experience and that the level of attention falls

as the respondent becomes more and more operationally experienced.

This could lead to the 3-10 years of service group consciously recognising, and

therefore reporting a drop in the amount of leadership behaviour directed at them,

compared to their relatively recent time in the 0-2 years of service group. The 11-20

years of service group could be less conscious, and also less perturbed, by this drop

in their sergeant’s attention, as it is likely to have been more gradual over their

longer operational career. This pattern could also lead to the 21+ years of service

group receiving much less of their sergeant’s leadership behaviour, compared to

other groups, shown by their relatively low reporting scores especially for the

behaviour of being told what to do (mean=3.13) in figure 4.16.

74

5.3 - Research Question 2): What is the relationship between transformational,

transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles and subordinate self-confidence in

decision-making?

It was hypothesised that there would be a positive statistically significant relationship

between “transformational leadership” and “self-confidence in decision-making”.

This was found to be true by the fact that respondents that reported their sergeant

displaying transformational qualities were significantly more likely to report that they

felt confident to make their own decisions (r = 0.39, p<0.01). Furthermore, all of the

10 transformational qualities were significantly and positively correlated with

reporting scores on confidence to make own decisions. The qualities of support if

the respondent made a mistake, being approachable and encouraging respondents

to take the lead when working on an issue, were the strongest correlated. This

suggests that the typical leadership styles used by sergeants of acting as a safety

net, as described in research question 1, is a productive way to develop individual’s

confidence to make their own decisions. However, it is important to note that the

majority of correlations were only of moderate strength (around the 0.3 mark

generally and around 0.23 for PCs). Therefore there are likely to be other

independent factors that affect self-confidence in decision making.

These findings support those of Dobby et al. (2004) which found a statistically

significant positive correlation between the ‘Transformational Leadership’ scale and

“self-confidence” (between 0.63 and 0.88) although the relationship was not as

strong. This may be due to the fact that the measurement scale “self-confidence”

does not relate exactly to self-confidence in decision making. It is conceivable that a

leadership style could influence self-confidence, but not self-confidence in terms of

their decision making, because there are likely to be other intervening variables

which affect this.

There was some evidence which suggested support for the theory of Duric who

argued that “the best leaders are both transformational and transactional.” (Duric,

2011:191). For example the mean agreement score on the statement “I feel

75

confident to make my own decisions” was significantly greater amongst those who

report a combination of transformational and transactional styles than those who

report only transactional styles or laissez-faire styles.

However, it appears that some transactional behaviour is more productive than

others in developing self-confidence. Results suggest that the transactional quality

of sergeants rewarding respondents if they do something that has a good result had

a moderate and significant relationship with self-confidence, although the correlation

was not as large for the transformational qualities. The transactional qualities of

telling respondents what to do have smaller, non-statistically significant correlations

with self-confidence, and the transactional quality of reprimanding respondents if

something had a bad result had slightly negative, although not statistically significant

correlations with self-confidence. Therefore these results and those from research

question 1 (which found that respondents were less likely to report rewarding

behaviours from their sergeants), suggest that encouraging more rewarding

behaviours by sergeants could achieve some benefits in staff self-confidence.

However, sergeants should not expect great increases in self-confidence from telling

respondents what to do, and should expect no increase, or a slight decrease as a

result of reprimanding respondents.

Finally laissez-faire leadership was slightly negatively correlated with confidence to

make decisions, although the relationship was not statistically significant. This

suggests that this type of approach is ineffective when it comes to attempting to

increase the self-confidence of staff and therefore should be a focus for

organisational efforts to secure improvement. However, it is not clear whether it is

necessarily destructive.

76

5.4 - Research Question 2a) - How does this vary due to gender, length of service


A notable difference was defined as a difference between particular demographics in

correlation size of 0.30 or more. This was used because the 0.30 figure is

recognised as a threshold above which a relationship is defined as having a

moderate correlation, and below which little of no correlation can be assumed

beyond random sampling error (Dancey and Reidy, 2011).

The main differences identified were:

The relationship between rewards and self-confidence for the 0-2 years of service

group and its decrease as level of service increases.

The self-confidence of the 0-2 years of service sample was moderately correlated

with the transactional quality of their sergeant rewarding them if something they did

had a good result (r=0.57, p<0.01). This relationship remained, as shown in table

5.1, despite the potential effect of more PCSOs of this level of service being

controlled for.

Figure 5.1 – Correlations scores between self-confidence in decision making and the


years of service sample, controlling for rank)

77

Figure 5.2 shows that the self-confidence of the 3-10 years of service group was also

significantly correlated with this quality, but the size of the correlation was smaller

(r=0.26, p<0.01). Whereas the self-confidence of the 11-20 years of service group

was not significantly correlated with this quality (r=0.19, p>0.05), and the self-confid-

ence of the 21+ years of service group was negatively and not significantly correl-

ated (r=-0.09, p>0.05).

It should be noted here that although the correlation is classed as significant in the 0-

2 years of service group, the size of the sample was just 24 respondents, meaning

that there should be some caution in broadly generalising the results from this

sample to all people within this demographic.

Figure 5.2 – Correlation scores between rewarding the respondent and self-confid-

ence in decision making by length of service

78

This suggests that styles similar to the “contingent reward” style of transactional

leadership (Dobby et al 2004) may be productive in developing the confidence of this

group compared to others, although it appears that the punishments part of this style

does not appear to have any significant benefit. Further research with larger sample

sizes could strengthen the generalisations that can be made from this finding.

However, the results for research question 1a) show that no length of service group

received significantly more rewards than other groups. Given this, the organisation

should consider specific methods to increase the confidence of younger service

groups through highlighting and rewarding their good practice, perhaps through

awards, boards in stations or through a newsletter. Communications and training for

sergeants could also encourage more of these behaviours for this group. Another

option is to implement regular supervision appointments, between supervisor and

student officer, to highlight their good performance.

79

The larger effect of reprimand on the 21+ years of service group

Figure 5.3 shows that amongst the 21+years of service group, there was a large (al-

though not statistically significant) correlation between self-confidence and when the

sergeant reprimands the respondent if they do something that has a bad result

(r=0.35, p>0.05). This correlation was not found to any similar extent amongst any of

the other service level groups, and the results could not be explained by another

demographic that could be controlled for.

Figure 5.3 – Correlation scores between reprimanding the respondent and self-con-

fidence in decision making by length of service

Again, it should be noted here that the correlation is classed as “not statistically

significant” and the size of the sample from this demographic was just 24

respondents, meaning that there should be some caution in broadly generalising the

80

results from this sample to all people. Further research with larger sample sizes

could strengthen the generalisations that can be made from this finding.

It must also be stated that this is also only notable when compared with other

groups, rather than being the most important factor per se. Instead the results

suggest that amongst this group, the qualities which were largest and significantly

correlated were the sergeant encouraging the respondent to take the lead on an

issue and motivating the respondent. This suggests that a productive leadership

style amongst this group is to give them significant freedom, but also to intervene

enough to maintain motivation and to deal with any mistakes. This approach has

some similarities to a combination of the “inspirational motivation” transformational

style identified by Murphy and Drodge (2004) and the “management-by-exception-

passive” identified by Denston (1999).

The results for this group in research question 1a) show that this group were often

the least likely to report positively about their sergeant’s behaviours, suggesting that

although passing responsibility to this group may be productive, there is a danger

that leaders are being too laissez-faire with this age group, perhaps in the belief that

they are beyond managing or do not need it. Therefore the organisation could

consider communications and training for sergeants to encourage more of these

behaviours for this group. Another option is to implement regular supervision

appointments, between supervisor and officer, to maintain motivation and deal with

any mistakes.

The larger effect of good advice on the 3-10 years of service group

Figure 5.4 shows that amongst the 3-10 years of service group, the quality of the

sergeant giving the respondent good advice was both positively and significantly cor-

related with confidence to make decisions, whereas the same correlations amongst

other service groups was not as large, nor significant.

81

Figure 5.4 – Correlation scores between giving the respondent good advice and self-

confidence in decision making by length of service

This relationship remained despite the potential effect of more PCSOs at this level of

service. This is shown in the table 5.5 below with rank being controlled for.




A potential explanation could be that respondents with more years of service require

less advice to feel confident, which was shown from figures 4.26 and 4.27 above,

whereas the 0-2 year group, who although may need the advice, are more likely to

receive direct sergeant intervention generally, and therefore are likely to be less reli-

ant on this in order to be self-confident. The 3-10 years of service group however,

82

despite still needing some sergeant support, appear to be less likely to receive it,

therefore making them more reliant on the sergeant to act as this safety net, particu-

larly with good advice from afar, as well as support if they make a mistake, making a

decision if required and being approachable. This approach has some similarities to

the “inspirational motivation” transformational style identified by Murphy and Drodge

(2004) where the leader acts as a personal mentor.

Results from research question 1 a) support this showing that amongst the range of

experience levels the 0-2 years of service group reported the lowest mean

(indicating stronger agreement) on this and many other behaviours, whereas the 3-

10 years of service group reported significantly higher mean scores (showing less

agreement) than other groups, particularly the 11-20 years of service group. This

could be explained by them recognising a drop in the amount of leadership

behaviour directed at them compared to their relatively recent time in the 0-2 years

service group. The 11-20 years of service group could be less conscious, and also

less perturbed, by this drop in their sergeant’s attention as it is likely to have been

more gradual over their operational career.

This suggests that the lack of leadership behaviour directed at those with 3-10 years

of service, suggested by results form research question 1a), is impacting upon their

confidence, preventing it being at levels it perhaps could, or should be. Again,

although methodological explanations cannot be discounted, the organisation should

consider communications and training for sergeants to encourage more of these

behaviours for this group. Another option is to implement regular supervision

appointments, between supervisor and officer, to provide this opportunity to get

advice.

The greater relationship between the majority of leadership qualities and self-confid-

ence in decision making for PCSOs compared to PCs

83

Figure 5.6 shows that the difference between the size of correlations between the

PCSO and the PC sample were larger (all above 0.33) for all the qualities except the

quality of reprimanding respondents if they did something that had a bad result.

One potential explanation for these results could be that PCSOs could be typically of

less years of service than their PC colleagues, and that is an explanation as to why

they require more hands-on leadership. However as the table below shows this

result continues despite length of service being controlled for, as shown in table 5.7.

Figure 5.6 –Correlation scores between self-confidence in decision making and the

10 transformational leadership qualities and 3 transactional leadership qualities by

rank

84



(PCSO sample controlling for length of service)

This suggests that PCSOs rely heavily on their supervisor to influence their

confidence. This is for both transactional and transformational styles. However,

ironically, the one style that they statistically received more of than other groups was

a reprimanding style, which was the only one that did not influence their confidence

positively. Furthermore, the proportion of laissez-faire leaders was larger in the

PCSO sample as opposed to in the PC sample (20.6%/15.9%). This is an

interesting finding suggesting that significant proportions of PCSOs receive the least

hands-on supervision of all, despite them often being the least experienced and most

front-line staff within the organisation.

85

Potential explanations for this include the nature of the PCSO role, which leads to them

often being out of the physical reach of their sergeant, and/or their perceived lower

status amongst some sergeants leading to the more reprimanding style reported.

This suggests that PCSOs require more supervision than they are currently getting.

Potential ideas to address this include PCSOs being allocated a sergeant-qualified

PC to act as mentors/staff officers to supplement the work of the sergeant. Another

is for regular supervision appointments to be arranged with PCSOs to deal with their

concerns and give this much needed sergeant intervention.

5.5 - The effect of methodology

As discussed in the methodology section, and within some sections of the

discussion, the particular research approach, design, sample and methods can

impact on the data that is collected and therefore on the conclusions that are

reached by the study. Although some of these methodological impacts have already

been discussed, it is necessary to fully identify any other impacts and discuss any

resulting shortcomings of the research, so that the final conclusions can be put into

an appropriate perspective.

5.5.1 - Research approach

The quantitative approach of this study means that explanations of relationships

identified in research questions 1a) and 2a) can only be guessed at by the

researcher from their own experience, in the world where the data was collected.

This is because the data collected has been pre-categorised by the researcher,

restricting the opportunity for data subjects to identify further insights.

5.5.2 - Research design

Due to its cross-sectional research design, deciding the direction of causality

between the observed relationships in research questions 2) and 2a) is not always

possible. For example, it is not possible to prove that “transformational leadership”

causes increased “self-confidence” any more than it is possible to prove that “self-

confidence” causes increased “transformational leadership”. It could be quite that if

86

police subordinates exhibit more self-confidence, then their supervisor may exhibit

more transformational behaviours towards them because of it.

5.5.3 - Research sample

The research sample did over-represent respondents from the City BCU, the SNT,

males, those with 3-10 years of service and PCs, although there were significant

numbers of different groups to allow useful analyses to be completed. Therefore it

must be noted that the results for research question 1) and 2) may be more affected

by relationships with these demographics, than that in others. However, this impact

was managed somewhat by the results for research question 1a) and 2a) that

focused on the relationships between key variables amongst different demographic

groups.

The low response rate for the survey (estimated to be 23.5%) left the results,

particularly amongst the under-represented groups, to be open to a non-response

bias. Individuals who are indifferent about their sergeant’s behaviour would be less

likely to complete a survey which asks for assessment of those behaviours. This

could lead to the extremes of the relationship being captured, presenting a risk that

the final results over-estimate the strength of any relationships.

5.5.4 - Research methods

The self-completion questionnaire format presents the risk of a number of biases on the

results, based on the fact that the researcher is relying on the respondent to accurately

report the behaviours measured.

This presents a risk of acquiescence bias which could over-inflate the size of any

correlation between the respondent’s assessment of their sergeant’s behaviour with

their assessment of their confidence to make their own decisions, because respondents

tend to consistently agree or disagree with both types of questions.

Another is social desirability bias, where “respondents answers to questions are related

to their perception of the social desirability of those answers” (2012:227-228) was

87

considered a risk in the research proposal stage, the sizeable proportion of laissez-faire

leaders (reporting negative behaviours by their sergeant) identified by the study suggest

that this effect was not large.

5.6 Conclusion, implications & recommendations

Results suggest that on the whole sergeants in the organisation are using

appropriate transformational and transactional behaviours. All transformational

behaviours and the transactional behaviour of rewarding individuals are likely to

develop self-confidence to make decisions for the majority of their staff, although the

size of correlations suggests that there are certainly other factors that affect this.

However, there is room for improvement. Firstly sergeants could be encouraged and

developed, through organisational training or communications, to use more

“coaching” styles of leadership through rewarding, motivating and developing their

staff. Secondly, the organisation should attempt to identify the significant proportion

of laissez-faire leaders indicated (described as an “absence of leadership” by Duric,

2011) to focus improvement efforts, either via training, or by dealing with inadequate

performance. One potential way this could be done is to allow subordinates to

annually rate their sergeant anonymously via 360 degree feedback methods. This is

especially relevant due to results suggesting that laissez-faire leadership is

ineffective when it comes to attempting to increase the self-confidence of staff.

Those with 3-10 years and 21+ years of experience are particular likely to report this

laissez-faire leadership. Although methodological explanations cannot be

discounted, it is recommended that, as well as 360 degree feedback methods,

organisational training or communications should be passed to sergeants within the

organisation to consider how evenly they focus their leadership behaviour within their

teams, so that specific groups or individuals are not isolated. This would help avoid

unexpected dips in self-confidence among more experienced officers.

88

Another key finding was that PCSOs reported more reprimanding styles. Although

issues of perception amongst this group cannot be discounted, organisational training or

communications should be passed to sergeants to consider whether PCSOs require a

more supportive and less reprimanding style to that accepted by their PC colleagues.

More specifically there are opportunities for specific sergeant behaviours to develop

confidence levels for particular groups. The main opportunities identified were:

- Highlighting and rewarding good practice amongst those with fewer years of

service;

- Focusing much more sergeant transactional and transformational behaviour

towards PCSOs;

- Ensuring that leaders are not being too laissez-faire with more experienced

officers (21+ years of service) with this age group, perhaps in the belief that

they are beyond managing, or do not need it.

- Ensuring that those who have come out of their student officer period (those

with 3-10 years of service) are still supported by the sergeant acting as a

safety net;

Potential methods to realise these opportunities include regular supervision

appointments between line manager (or part ½ passed officers), team mentors for

PCSOs, highlighting good practice for less experienced officers through specific

newsletters, awards or boards in police stations, specific training and internal

communications via the organisational intranet. These could create big benefits in the

appropriate management of resources as well as in the service provided to the public in

these times of budgetary constraint.

5.7 – Future improvements

It is anticipated that the researcher will employ a qualitative approach in the future,

such as grounded theory, using methods such as focus groups or unstructured

interviews with key groups such as those with 0-2 years of service and PCSOs.

89

This can overcome some of the disadvantages of the methodology used in this

research as they allow the data subject freedom to offer insights into:

- A more detailed understanding of variables (e.g. What does transformational,

transactional and laissez-faire leadership look and feel like to the respond-

ent?)

- Why certain variables are correlated (e.g. Why do transformational and cer-

tain transactional behaviours influence self-confidence? Why does reward

have such a positive effect amongst the 0-2 years of service group? Why

does transformational and transactional behaviour have such a positive effect

on PCSOs? Why do the 21+ years of service group respond well to being rep-

rimanded?

- What the direction of causality could be between variables (does leadership

behaviour effect self-confidence or vice versa?

- Identify potential sources of bias or explanations in this research data (e.g.

why are those with 3-10 years and 21+ years of service generally reporting

less positively about their supervisors than those with 0-2 years of service and

11-20 years of service? Why do PCSOs report more reprimanding styles than

their PC colleagues?)

- Identify potential solutions to the opportunities identified (to include evaluation

of the opportunities identified).

Word Count (Results to Conclusion): 7,638

References

Adebayo, D, (2005), ‘Perceived workplace fairness, transformational

leadership and motivations in the Nigeria Police: implications for change,’

International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 7(2), 110-122.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2000) The Transformational

Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ-LGV): a convergent and discriminant

validation study. Leadership and Organisation Development Journal, 21 June

90

2000, 280-296.

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2001) The Development of a new

Transformational Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and

Organisational Psychology, 74, 1-27.

Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full Leadership Development: Building the Vital Forces in

Organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Full-range of Leadership Development.

Binghamton: Bass, Avolio & Associates.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (Eds,). (1994). Improving Organizational

Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications.

Brough, P. Frame, R. (2004) Predicting Police Job Satisfaction and Turnover

Intentions: The role of social support and police organisational variables. New

Zealand Journal of Psychology; Mar2004, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p8-16.

Brunetto and Wharton (2003). The commitment and satisfaction of lower-

ranked police officers: Lessons for management. Policing: An International

Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

Bryman (2008). Social Research Methods. 3rd Edition. Oxford University

Press.

Bryman (2012). Social Research Methods. 4th Edition. Oxford University

Press.

Campbell, I. Kodz, J. (2011) What makes great police leadership? What

research can tell us about the effectiveness of different leadership styles,

competencies and behaviours. A Rapid Evidence Review; NPIA.

Dancey, C; Reidy, J. (2011) Statistics without maths for psychology. 5th

Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education 2011.

Densten (2003). ‘Senior police leadership: does rank matter?’ Policing: an

International Journal, Vol. 26(3), 400-418.

Dick, G. (2011); THE INFLUENCE OF MANAGERIAL AND JOB VARIABLES

ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN THE POLICE. Public

Administration 89. 2 (Jun 2011): 557.

91

http://search.proquest.com/docview.issuebrowselink:searchpublicationissue/40715/Public+Administration/02011Y06Y01$23Jun+2011$3b++Vol.+89+$282$29/89/2?t:ac=876079514/Record/136A66EA8B74AA2B039/32&t:cp=maintain/resultcitationblocks

http://search.proquest.com/docview.lateralsearchlinkbypubid:lateralsearch/sng/pubtitle/Public+Administration/$N/40715?t:ac=876079514/Record/136A66EA8B74AA2B039/32&t:cp=maintain/resultcitationblocks


http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/181


Dobby, J., Anscombe, J. and Tuffin, R. (2004), Police Leadership:

Expectations and Impact (Home Office, Development & Statistics Directorate,

London).

Duric (2011) Transformational Leadership Styles in the Slovenian Police.

Journal of Criminal Justice and Security year 13 no. 2 pp. 188-207

Engel, R., (2001), ‘Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants’,

Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29(4), 341-355.

Hawkins and Dulewicz (2009); Relationships between Leadership Style, the

Degree of Change Experienced, Performance and Follower Commitment in

Policing. Journal of Change Management, Volume 9, Number 3, September

2009 , pp. 251-270(20)

Home Office (2010), Consultation: Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting

the people and the public. See www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

publications/consultations/policing-21stcentury

Home Office, (2011). Peter Neyroud QPM. Review of Police Leadership and

Training, Volume One. See www.homeoffice.gov.uk/.../rev-police-leadership-

training/report?...

Howitt, D and Cramer, D. (2003). An Introduction to Statistics in Psychology.

Harlow:Prentice Hall

Jermier and Berkes (1979). Leader Behavior in a Police Command

Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-Military Model. Administrative

Science Quarterly 24. 1 (March 1979):

Mangione, T.W. (1995). Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality. Thousand Oaks,

CA:Sage.

Metcalfe B.; Dick G. (2000). Is the force still with you? Measuring Police

Commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, vol 15, no 8 pp812-832.

Metcalfe B.; Dick G. (2001). Exploring organisation commitment in the police:

Implications for human resource strategy. Policing: An International Journal of

Police Strategies and Management, Volume 24, Number 3, 2001 , pp. 399-

420(22)

Murphy, S. Drodge, E. (2004). The four I's of police leadership: A case study

heuristic. International Journal of Police Science & Management ; Spring2004,

92



http://search.proquest.com/docview.issuebrowselink:searchpublicationissue/24293/Administrative+Science+Quarterly/01979Y03Y01$23March+1979$3b++Vol.+24+$281$29/24/1?t:ac=203947871/Record/136A6BE21DE461D9BAA/290&t:cp=maintain/resultcitationblocks

http://search.proquest.com/docview.lateralsearchlinkbypubid:lateralsearch/sng/pubtitle/Administrative+Science+Quarterly/$N/24293?t:ac=203947871/Record/136A6BE21DE461D9BAA/290&t:cp=maintain/resultcitationblocks


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/chm

Vol. 6 Issue 1, p1-15, 15p

Neyroud, P (2011). Leading policing in the 21st century: leadership,

democracy, deficits and the new professionalism; Public Money &

Management, 31:5, 347-354

Raus, A ; Haita, M ; Lazar, L ; (2012) HIERARCHY OF NEEDS,

PERCEPTION AND PREFERENCE FOR LEADERSHIP STYLES WITHIN A

POLICE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. TRANSYLVANIAN REVIEW OF

ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES Issue: 35E Pages: 238-255

Singer, M. and Jonas, A. (1987) ‘Perceived Leadership Style in the New

Zealand Police’ Police Studies, Vol. 10 (3), 118-121.

Appendices

On force strength calculated on July 31st 2013

93

https://apps.webofknowledge.com/OneClickSearch.do?product=UA&search_mode=OneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=U2jDbB4add7Km2nljL9&field=AU&value=Lazar,%20L

https://apps.webofknowledge.com/OneClickSearch.do?product=UA&search_mode=OneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=U2jDbB4add7Km2nljL9&field=AU&value=Haita,%20M

https://apps.webofknowledge.com/OneClickSearch.do?product=UA&search_mode=OneClickSearch&colName=WOS&SID=U2jDbB4add7Km2nljL9&field=AU&value=Raus,%20A

The first survey link was sent

Reminder links to the main survey

Self-completion questionnaire administered to the organisation e-mail account of respondents

Two direct responses to the researcher were received (see appendix) which highlighted that at the time of the survey being sent some “Safer Neighbourhood” staff would not be able to identify a particular sergeant who was directly managing them.

Between October and November 2012 the pilot survey was sent out to 19 members of staff within a Delivering Justice Directorate Department via an electronic link sent via e-mail to the personal police e-mail account of the recipient (see appendix).

This department was chosen because it was the department of the researcher and offered practical advantages in obtaining consent to conduct the pilot survey due to an existing working relationship with the Detective Inspector in charge of the department (see appendix).

The first e-mail invitation to complete the survey was sent on 2nd October 2012 (see appendix). There followed further reminders sent on 18th October 2012 and 14th

October 2012 (See Appendix). In total 14 responses were received calculating as a

response rate of 73.7%.

94

AppendicesAppendix 1.1 – Literature Search Records

DATABASE SEARCHED

TIME, DATE, LOCATION

KEYWORD USED NUMBER OF RESULTS (JOURNALS/GOV.REPORTS)

DATABASE SEARCH NUMBER

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

06/05/2012; 1:40PM;

DMU LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

18 1

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

06/05/2012; 2:04PM;

DMU LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

131 2

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

06/05/2012; 2:26PM;

DMU LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

34 3

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

06/05/2012;

15:06PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISORS

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

25 4

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

12/05/2012;

12:17PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGER (WITHIN

ABSTRACT)

65 5

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

12/05/2012;

12:33PM; DMU

POLICE LEADER (WITHIN

ABSTRACT)

60 6

95

LIBRARY

ACADEMIC SEARCH

PREMIER (EBSCO)

12/05/2012;

12:44PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SERGEANT (WITHIN

ABSTRACT)

17 7

PROQUEST 12/05/2012;

12:48PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

83 8


13:03PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

933 9


14:05PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

304 10


14:16PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISORS

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

104 11


14:33PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

293 12


14:51PM; DMU

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

211 13

96

LIBRARY


15:09PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

84 14

CSA ILLUMINA 12/05/2012;

15:25PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

27 15


15:28PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

3 16


15:29PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

3 17


15:30PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISORS

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

9 18


15:31PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

12 19


15:31PM; DMU


ABSTRACT)

2 20

97

LIBRARY


15:33PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

7 21

INGENTA CONNECT 14/05/2012;

13:12PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

674 22


13:12PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

674 23


15:09PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

59 24


15:52PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISOR

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

55 25


13:51PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

99 26


15:40PM; DMU


ABSTRACT)

104 27

98

LIBRARY


15:47PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

19 28

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

13:58PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

32 29

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

14:03PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

4 30

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

14:04PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

2 31

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

14:04PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISOR

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

1 32

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

14:05PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

6 33

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

14:06PM; DMU


ABSTRACT)

1 34

99

LIBRARY

JSTOR 14/05/2012;

14:06PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

1 35

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:12PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

3 36

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:13PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

0 37

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:13PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

0 38

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:14PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISOR

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

0 39

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:15PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN ABSTRACT)

3 40

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:15PM; DMU


ABSTRACT)

4 41

100

LIBRARY

LEXIS 14/05/2012;

14:06PM; DMU

LIBRARY


ABSTRACT)

2 42

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

14:39PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

127 50

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

14:44PM; DMU

LIBRARY


TITLE ONLY)

29 51

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

14:49PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

30 52

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

14:53PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISOR

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

14 53

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

14:54PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

55 54

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

15:00PM; DMU


TITLE ONLY)

18 55

101

LIBRARY

WEB OF

KNOWLEDGE

14/05/2012;

15:02PM; DMU

LIBRARY


TITLE ONLY)

16 56

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

15:05PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

197 57

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

15:12PM; DMU

LIBRARY


TITLE ONLY)

9 58

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

15:12PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

8 59

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

15:14PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISOR

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

7 60

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

14:54PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

76 61

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

15:17PM; DMU


TITLE ONLY)

15 62

102

LIBRARY

ZETOC 14/05/2012;

15:02PM; DMU

LIBRARY


TITLE ONLY)

13 63

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

15:25PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE MANAGEMENT

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

59 64

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

15:27PM; DMU

LIBRARY


TITLE ONLY)

1 65

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

15:27PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISION

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

0 66

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

15:14PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE SUPERVISOR

(WITHIN TITLE ONLY)

1 67

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

14:54PM; DMU

LIBRARY

POLICE LEADERSHIP (ALL

FIELDS)

41 68

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

15:17PM; DMU


TITLE ONLY)

4 69

103

LIBRARY

NPIA POLICE

LIBRARY

14/05/2012;

15:02PM; DMU

LIBRARY


TITLE ONLY)

2 70

N.B The databases searched were those under the Criminology and Community and Criminal Justice Subject Guide on the

DMU Library intranet.

104

Appendix 1.2 – Searches within studies that met inclusion criteria

JOURNAL/GOV.REPORT SEARCHED TIME, DATE, LOCATION

NUMBER OF REFERENCES

DATABASE SEARCH NUMBER

Campbell, I. Kodz, J. (2011) What makes great police

leadership? What research can tell us about the effectiveness

of different leadership styles, competencies and behaviours. A

Rapid Evidence Review; NPIA.

15/05/2012;

11:36AM; DMU

LIBRARY

27 71

Dobby, J., Anscombe, J. and Tuffin, R. (2004), Police

Leadership: Expectations and Impact. Home Office,

Development & Statistics Directorate, London.

15/05/2012;

11:59AM; DMU

LIBRARY

28 72

Engel, R., 2001, Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and

lieutenants, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29(4), 341-355.

15/05/2012;

12:20PM; DMU

LIBRARY

55 73

Dick, G. (2011); THE INFLUENCE OF MANAGERIAL AND

JOB VARIABLES ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT IN

THE POLICE. Public Administration 89. 2 (Jun 2011): 557.

15/05/2012;

15:27PM; DMU

LIBRARY

67 74

Adebayo, D, (2005), Perceived workplace fairness,

transformational leadership and motivations in the Nigeria

Police: implications for change. International Journal of Police

15/05/2012;

16:02PM; DMU

LIBRARY

47 75

105



Science and Management, Vol. 7(2), 110-122.

Brough, P. Frame, R. (2004) Predicting Police Job Satisfaction

and Turnover Intentions: The role of social support and police

organisational variables. New Zealand Journal of Psychology;

Mar2004, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p8-16.

16/05/2012;

11:28AM; DMU

LIBRARY

53 76

Hawkins and Dulewicz (2009); Relationships between

Leadership Style, the Degree of Change Experienced,

Performance and Follower Commitment in Policing. Journal of

Change Management, Volume 9, Number 3, September 2009 ,

pp. 251-270(20)

18/05/2012;

18:19PM; DMU

LIBRARY

41 77

Metcalfe B.; Dick G. (2001). Exploring organisation

commitment in the police: Implications for human resource

strategy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies

and Management, Volume 24, Number 3, 2001 , pp. 399-

420(22)

18/05/2012;

18:57PM; DMU

LIBRARY

46 78

Murphy, S. Drodge, E. (2004). The four I's of police leadership:

A case study heuristic. International Journal of Police Science

& Management; Spring2004, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p1-15, 15p

18/05/2012;

19:07PM; DMU

LIBRARY

31 79

Raus, A ; Haita, M ; Lazar, L ; (2012) HIERARCHY OF

NEEDS, PERCEPTION AND PREFERENCE FOR

LEADERSHIP STYLES WITHIN A POLICE EDUCATIONAL

19/05/2012;

17:33PM; DMU

LIBRARY

14 80

106








INSTITUTION. TRANSYLVANIAN REVIEW OF


Singer, M. and Jonas, A. (1987) ‘Perceived Leadership Style in

the New Zealand Police’ Police Studies, Vol. 10 (3), 118-121.

19/05/2012;

17:53PM; DMU

LIBRARY

9 81

Brunetto and Wharton (2003). The commitment and

satisfaction of lower-ranked police officers: Lessons for

management. Policing: An International Journal of Police

Strategies and Management, Volume 26, Number 1, 2003

20/05/2012;

17:46PM; DMU

LIBRARY

50 82

Jermier and Berkes (1979). Leader Behavior in a Police

Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-Military

Model. Administrative Science Quarterly 24. 1 (March 1979):

21/05/2012;

19:18PM; DMU

LIBRARY

113 83

Metcalfe B.; Dick G. (2000). Is the force still with you?

Measuring Police Commitment. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, vol 15, no 8 pp812-832.

21/05/2012;

19:37PM; DMU

LIBRARY

40 84

Duric (2011) Transformational Leadership Styles in the

Slovenian Police. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security year

13 no. 2 pp. 188-207

21/05/2012;

19:37PM; DMU

LIBRARY

85

107





Appendix 1.3 – Final Resources and Database Search numbers where they were located.

JOURNAL/GOV.REPORT SEARCHED DATABASE SEARCH NUMBER

Adebayo, D, (2005), ‘Perceived workplace fairness, transformational leadership and motivations in the Nigeria

Police: implications for change,’ International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 7(2), 110-122.

71

Brough, P. Frame, R. (2004) Predicting Police Job Satisfaction and Turnover

Intentions: The role of social support and police organisational variables. New Zealand Journal of Psychology;

Mar2004, Vol. 33 Issue 1, p8-16.

4

Brunetto and Wharton (2003). The commitment and satisfaction of lower-ranked police officers: Lessons for

management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Volume 26, Number 1,

2003

28

Campbell, I. Kodz, J. (2011) What makes great police leadership? What research can tell us about the

effectiveness of different leadership styles, competencies and behaviours. A Rapid Evidence Review; NPIA.

68

Dick, G. (2011); THE INFLUENCE OF MANAGERIAL AND JOB VARIABLES ON ORGANIZATIONAL

COMMITMENT IN THE POLICE. Public Administration 89. 2 (Jun 2011): 557.

9

Dobby, J., Anscombe, J. and Tuffin, R. (2004), Police Leadership: Expectations and Impact. Home Office,

Development & Statistics Directorate, London.

71

Duric (2011) Transformational Leadership Styles in the Slovenian Police. Journal of Criminal Justice and 55

108




Security year 13 no. 2 pp. 188-207

Engel, R., 2001, ‘Supervisory styles of patrol sergeants and lieutenants’, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29(4),

341-355.

8

Hawkins and Dulewicz (2009); Relationships between Leadership Style, the Degree of Change Experienced,

Performance and Follower Commitment in Policing. Journal of Change Management, Volume 9, Number 3,

September 2009 , pp. 251-270(20)

27

Jermier and Berkes (1979). Leader Behavior in a Police Command Bureaucracy: A Closer Look at the Quasi-

Military Model. Administrative Science Quarterly 24. 1 (March 1979):

12

Metcalfe B.; Dick G. (2000). Is the force still with you? Measuring Police Commitment. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, vol 15, no 8 pp812-832.

78

Metcalfe B.; Dick G. (2001). Exploring organisation commitment in the police: Implications for human resource

strategy. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, Volume 24, Number 3, 2001 ,

pp. 399-420(22)

22

Murphy, S. Drodge, E. (2004). The four I's of police leadership: A case study heuristic. International Journal of

Police Science & Management ; Spring2004, Vol. 6 Issue 1, p1-15, 15p

3

Raus, A ; Haita, M ; Lazar, L ; (2012) HIERARCHY OF NEEDS, PERCEPTION AND PREFERENCE FOR

LEADERSHIP STYLES WITHIN A POLICE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION. TRANSYLVANIAN REVIEW OF


54

Singer, M. and Jonas, A. (1987) ‘Perceived Leadership Style in the New Zealand Police’ Police Studies, Vol. 10

(3), 118-121.

71

109








Appendix 2.1 – Project Proposal Pilot Survey

1) Behaviours of your Sergeant.

Please answer the following questions by indicating your level of agreement with the statement in bold.

Please answer the following questions in relation to your main sergeant in your current role.

My sergeant shows genuine concerned for my well-being.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant provides me with opportunities to develop myself.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is consistent in their behaviour towards me.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is open to my ideas on an issue.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is approachable.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”My sergeant is an inspirational communicator.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant identifies my work as being part of a larger organisational vision.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant identifies clear priorities for my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

110

My sergeant creates a supportive environment where I feel that I can learn from my mistakes.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant can deal with changes that affect my working environment.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is charismatic.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant encourages me to question accepted ways of doing things.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is creative when it comes to solving problems that I present to them.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will make a decision on an issue when it is required.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will tell me what I have to do.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will take active steps to monitor my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

111

My sergeant will reward me for my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will punish me for my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

2) Self-Confidence in Decision-Making


Decisions refer to the operational decisions you make in your day-to-day role (e.g. decision to take a certain form of action/decision to take no further action).

I feel confident to make my own decisions.

“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I feel trusted to make my own decisions.


I feel supported to make my own decisions.


I have the freedom to make my own decisions.


I know when I can make my own decisions.


112

I have been trained enough to make my own decisions.


I have enough knowledge to make my own decisions.


I have enough experience to make my own decisions.


I fear negative consequences from the organisation when I make my own decisions.


I fear negative consequences from the public when I make my own decisions.


3) You and your roleGenderFemale Male

RankPC PCSO

DeploymentResponse Safer Neighbourhood Team

Length of Service at your rank

0-2 years 3-10 years 11-20 years 21+years

113

Appendix 2.2 – Pilot Survey

Does your sergeant make you feel more confident to make your own decisions?

Please take the time to read this short introduction.

Completion of the questionnaire will act as indication that you have read and understand the introduction and that you approve of taking part.

This questionnaire consists of 39 tick box questions.

It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.

The computer software used means that no individual respondent or sergeant can be identified by completing this questionnaire.

This is pilot questionnaire which means you are completing the questionnaire to test the overall validity of the questions used. Your individual responses will not be analysed further.

This pilot questionnaire will be used to create a final questionnaire which will be sent to all PC’s and PCSO’s in either a ‘Response’ or ‘Safer Neighbourhood Role’ in February 2013.

This questionnaire aims to measure:

1) How your Sergeant behaves in relation to you;

2) How confident you feel to make decisions for yourself in your day-to-day role;

3) Whether your Sergeant’s behaviour makes you feel more confident to make decisions for yourself in your day-to-day role.

This research will form the basis of a University Degree Project. The data collected will be only be viewed by the researcher and University academic

114

tutors in the role of checking the accuracy of the data. The data will be retained only until the end of the Degree Programme.

Participation is voluntary and you are free to refuse to answer any individual question.

If you have any further question or comments about this research then please contact me: [email protected]

Thank you,

Mark Brennan

1) Behaviours of your Sergeant.


Please answer the following questions in relation to your main sergeant in your current role.

My sergeant shows genuine concern for my welfare.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant attempts to develop my abilities.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant encourages me to take the lead when dealing with a matter.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

115

mailto:[email protected]

My sergeant shows that he/she appreciates the work that I do.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant sets high standards for the work that I do.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is fair in their behaviour towards me.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree” My sergeant encourages me to express my ideas on an issue.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant asks for my viewpoint before they make a decision.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is approachable.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”My sergeant motivates me. “strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is enthusiastic about the work that I do.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”My sergeant shows a “can-do” attitude.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant communicates that my work is relevant to larger police organisational aims (e.g. to protect the public, to reduce crime).“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”,

116

“disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant identifies clear priorities for my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant makes good decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant gives good advice when I am making a decision.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant focuses on learning from my mistakes rather than punishing me. “strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will support me if I make a mistake or if my decision has a negative consequence“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant can effectively deal with changes that affect the working environment I am in (e.g. change of procedure, change of location, change of staff).“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant has my respect.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant is good at their job.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant encourages me to come up with new ideas to improve my work.

117


My sergeant is creative when it comes to solving problems.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will make a decision on an issue when it is required.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I have confidence in my sergeant’s judgement when they make decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will tell me what I have to do.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will take active steps to monitor my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will reward me for my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

My sergeant will punish me for my work.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

118

2) Self-Confidence in Decision-MakingPlease answer the following questions by indicating your level of agreement with the statement in bold.


I feel confident to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I feel trusted to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I feel supported to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I have the freedom to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I know when I can make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I have been trained enough to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I have enough knowledge to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I have enough experience to make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I fear negative consequences from the organisation when I make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”,

119

“disagree”, “strongly disagree”

I fear negative consequences from the outside the organisation when I make my own decisions.“strongly agree” “agree” “neither disagree nor agree”, “disagree”, “strongly disagree”

120

Appendix 2.3 – Final Survey

Does your sergeant make you feel more or less confident to make your own decisions?

Please take the time to read this short introduction.

Completion of the questionnaire will act as indication that you have read and understand the introduction and that you approve of taking part.

This questionnaire consists of 20 tick box questions.

It will take approximately 5 minutes to complete.

The computer software used means that no individual respondent or sergeant can be identified through completion of this questionnaire.

This questionnaire has been sent to all PC’s and PCSO’s in either a ‘Response’ or ‘Safer Neighbourhood Role’

This questionnaire aims to measure:

1) How your Sergeant behaves in relation to you in your day-to-day role;

2) How confident you feel to make decisions for yourself in your day-to-day role;

3) Whether your Sergeant’s behaviour makes you feel more confident to make decisions for yourself in your day-to-day role.

Your results will be collated with other responses and analysed statistically to create a final report which will be available at the end of the research.

The report will be used to identify how the behaviour of sergeants within Leicestershire Police can be developed to make you feel more confident to make your own decisions.

This research will form the basis of a University Degree Project. The data collected will be viewed only by the researcher and university academic tutors for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the data. The data will be retained only until the end of the Degree Programme.

Participation is voluntary and you are free to refuse to answer any individual question.

121

If you have any further question or comments about this research then please contact me: [email protected]

Thank you,

Mark Brennan

Behaviours of your Sergeant.

Please answer the following questions by indicating your level of agreement with the statement in bold.Please answer the following questions in relation to your main sergeant in your current role.

1) My sergeant attempts to improve my abilities.


2) My sergeant encourages me to take the lead when working on an is-sue.


3) My sergeant encourages me to express my ideas when working on an issue.


4) My sergeant will make a decision on an issue when it is required.

122



5) My sergeant gives good advice.


6) My sergeant is approachable.


7) My sergeant motivates me.


8) My sergeant has earned my respect


9) My sergeant guides me to learn from my mistakes rather than reprim-anding me for them.


10) My sergeant will support me if I make a mistake or if my decision has a negative consequence.


11) My sergeant will tell me what to do in my role.


12)My sergeant will reward me if I do something that has a good result.

123


13)My sergeant will reprimand me if I do something that has a bad res-ult.


Self-Confidence in Decision-Making



14) I feel confident to make my own decisions.


15)I feel trusted to make my own decisions.


16)I feel supported to make my own decisions.


17) Deployment

Response Safer Neighbourhood Team

18) Gender

Female Male

19) Length Of Service

0-2 years 3-10 years 11-20 years 21+years

20) Rank

PC PCSO

124

Appendix 3.1 – Authority For Research

Leicestershire Police

CORPORATE SERVICES

Individual Research Request

Name DC223 Mark BrennanFrom City Domestic Abuse Investigation Officer

Mansfield House Police StationType Internal x ExternalRepeat request NoDate received in Force

19.04.12

Force Sponsor Sarah Pinner Head of Learning & DevelopmentReason for request:

I was hoping to get some advice from you about a research project I wish to complete within the organisation for a Criminology and Criminal Justice (Policing) programme at De Montfort University.

I am looking to complete a research questionnaire for police officers and police staff which measures which different styles of leadership are used by sergeants within Leicestershire and what effects these have on the officer.

I have discussed my ideas with the head of learning and development Sarah Pinner who is happy to support the research.

What I wanted to know is what, if any, further authorisation would I need to complete this research and secondly what possibility would there to be use facilities within the force to administer this questionnaire via e-mail?

Funding Required? UnknownFunding agreed? No

Request Authorised Yes

Deciding Officer Name C/I GrantCollar Number 4337Date processed 1/5/12

NOTES:

Authorised: This work is in the interests of the Force and could be used in the future to inform Learning Development with Leadership Training.

125

The results of the research should be made available to the Force to utilise

Appendix 3.2 – Timetable of ResearchSep 2012 - Administering of the pilot questionnaire.Oct 2012 – Analysis of pilot/formulation of final questionnaire.Nov 2012 - Feb 2013 - Variables defined and labelled within SPSS.Feb 2013 - Questionnaire administered and data collected. Mar – Apr 2013 - Results inputted into SPSS and data analysis.May – Dec 2013- Final research report completed.

Appendix 3.3 – List of ResourcesStatistics Package for Social Scientists (SPSS).SNAP – E-mail survey software.

126

Appendix 3.4 – Ethical Approval Form

De Montfort University - Faculty of Health and Life Sciences

APPLICATION FORM FOR ETHICAL APPROVAL

Titl Working Title of proposed research activity

What leadership styles are used by police sergeants and what effect do these styles have on a on a PC’S and PCSO’s self-confidence in decision making?

Student Name, P number and e-mail address

Mark Brennan;P06176740;[email protected]

Research Supervisor’s Name and email address – Student to leave Blank

Brief Description of proposed research activity and its objectives1. In no more than 500 words please give an outline of your study and additionally

identify your proposed research methods considering the points below: Qualitative / Quantitative / Mixed Methods? Data collection Method / Self Completion Questionnaire/Survey/Interviews/Other? Type of Data to be collected? Proposed Population?

Research Summary:This research attempts to identify the existence certain leadership styles used at the rank

of sergeant and then analyse the relationships between these styles and the presence of

self-confidence in decision making amongst PC and PCSO ranks.

A complete sampling frame of PCs and PCSOs based within the City and County BCUs

within Leicestershire Police will be gained from their HR department which will enable a

full sample to be completed by respondent’s role in either a “response” or “safer

neighbourhood team” resulting in respondents.

The research method used will be a self-completion questionnaire administered to the

organisation e-mail account of respondents. A software programme called SNAP will

127

administer the questionnaire via e-mail.

To identify and eliminate any practical problems with questionnaire structure and

understanding, a pilot questionnaire will be administered to approximately 20 police

officers who will not be involved in the final research questionnaire sample.

The following concepts will be measured via the questionnaire by asking respondents to

assess their level of agreement that their main first line supervisor possesses the quality

in question by using a 5 point Likert scale rating of “strongly disagree”, “disagree”,

“neither disagree nor agree”, “agree”, “strongly agree”:

Transformational leadership style which will be measured by 14 statements each of

which aim to measure one of the 14 dimensions of transformational leadership identified

by Dobby et al (2004).

Transactional leadership will be measured by 3 statements measuring the three aspects

of transactional leadership identified by the literature of contingent reward; management

by exception-passive and management by exception-active.

The following concepts will be measured by asking respondents to assess their level of

agreement that they possess the quality in question by using a 5 point Likert scale rating

of “strongly disagree”, “disagree”, “neither disagree nor agree”, “agree”, “strongly agree”:

Confidence in decision making will be measured by 10 statements measuring 5 key

aspects of leadership identified by internal research on decision-making in Leicestershire

Police. These are: confidence in making decisions; abilities to make decisions; freedom

to make decisions; knowing when decisions can be made; and fear of negative

consequence attached to decisions.

The variables of gender, length of service, rank (PC or PCSO), and deployment

(Response or Safer Neighbourhood Team) will also be measured via closed response

questions.

After the pilot study, alpha coefficients of the questionnaire measures will be completed,

meaning that some of the poorer measures will be dropped for the final questionnaire.

The SNAP e-mail questionnaire software codes responses which will then be exported

to the Statistics Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). This software package will

enable a number of analyses to be completed which will allow the research questions

and hypothesis to be tested using frequency tables, independent t-tests and Pearson

128

correlation coefficients.

Research will begin in September 2012 with the distribution of the pilot questionnaire.

These results will then be used to create the final questionnaire by November 2012.

Variables will then be defined and labelled within SPSS ready for a 4 week data

collection to begin in February 2013. Results will then be inputted into SPSS and data

analysis completed by April 2013. The final research report will then be completed in

time for the research deadline of December 2013.

Summary of ethical Issues Identified1. Please address the following issues in this section:

Informed Consent / Code of Ethics / Confidentiality / Sample identification & Engagement considerations eg Language or communication difficulties / Foreseen difficulties or challenges etc

- The research aims to comply with the British Psychological Society’s code of con-

duct, ethical principals and guidelines for conducting research with human re-

spondents.

- Informed consent forms will also be added to the questionnaire (See Appendix

3.2) which will explain that participation is voluntary and that they are free to re-

fuse to answer any questions. It will also explain the reasons for the research,

why it is important, why the recipient has been selected, a guarantee of anonymity

and that that a sanitised report of the results will be disseminated amongst the or-

ganisation. It will also provide contact details of the researcher if there are any

further questions of the respondent. Offering the opportunity to withdraw after re-

search was considered, but due to the use of the SNAP software once the ques-

tionnaire is submitted it is not possible to identify a questionnaire to a particular in-

dividual due to the replies being coded by the software. Asking for a signature

was again considered, but due to the electronic nature of the questionnaire it is

not practicably possible. A warning that completion of the questionnaire will be

taken as approval, and a reminder that the questionnaire is voluntary is included

to resolve this issue.

- Confidentiality will be ensured by not requesting any personal identification in-

formation of the respondent in the questionnaire. Software providing responses

129

will not record the personal details of the e-mail providing the response.

- Sample frames will be kept, secured and not made available with the final report.

- The risk of data loss will be managed by ensuring that the research data is only

stored electronically and only on secure, password protected organisational or

university software.

- Sample frames and data will be destroyed at the conclusion of this degree.

Signature of student (See hard copy for signature) DateList of accompanying documentation to support the application:

A copy of the research proposal Details of arrangements for participation of human subjects (including recruit-

ment, consent and confidentiality procedures and documentation as appro-priate).

A copy of all of the documentation provided to the volunteer to ensure the clarity of information provided.

A statement, where necessary, from your employer or their representative to confirm that permission has been granted for this research to be undertaken.

Other documentation as advised necessary.

130

REVIEW OF ACTIVITY TO BE COMPLETED BY PROPOSAL MARKER

A. Has the research proposal identified any of the following research procedures?Gathering information about human beings through; Interviewing, Surveying, Questionnaires, and Observation of human behaviour? YES/NOUsing data in which individuals are identifiable? YES/NO

Researching into illegal activities, activities at the margins of the law or activities that have a risk or injury? YES/NOResearch involving young people? YES/NOB. If any of the above occurs does the proposal satisfactorily identify the

ways in which the researcher/student will be dealing with the following?

(Please tick)

Providing participants with full information about the research?

Voluntary participation with informed consent?

Written description of the research, what will be expected of participants

and how their rights will be protected?

Freedom to withdraw?

Keeping appropriate records?

Signed acknowledgement and understanding by participants?

Consideration of relevant codes of conduct?

Ensuring the security of any confidential information for the life of the

project?

Protecting subjects’ confidentiality, anonymity and privacy?

There are four possible outcomes from reviewing the activity against the three categories and the procedures in place:

131

A. No ethical issuesB. Minor ethical issues which have been addressed and concerns resolvedC. Major ethical issues which have been addressed and concerns resolvedD. Ethical issues that have not been resolved

Tick the outcome of the review A B C D Authorisation The reviewer authorises those activities in the first three outcomes Activities in the third outcome are reported for information only to the Faculty

Committee Activities in the fourth outcome are submitted to the Faculty Committee for resol-

ution.

Signature of reviewer of this application: date:

Signature of module leader1 date:

Chair of the Faculty Ethics Committee signature: date:(if application was sent to the Faculty Ethics Committee)

Information about the ethical approval process

The University has a responsibility, following various international declarations, conventions and protocols on human rights, to ensure that individuals who are the subject of research have protection in relation to their right to privacy, confidentiality, and other interests.

‘Human research ethics’ deals with the protection of individuals who are the subjects of research (including undergraduate activities) and who volunteer to participate in research. It is essentially concerned with research involving individuals who have volunteered to participate in research projects. It might, in some cases, relate to subjects who are dead but whose living relatives might have ethical matters which need to be taken into consideration.As a general rule, human research ethics covers research activity involving information-gathering by: interviewing, surveying, questionnaires, observation of human behaviour (ethnography), and various biological/physiological and psychological processes.It covers the use of archive-based data in which individuals (alive, or dead with living relatives) are identifiable and it also covers research into illegal activities.There are four possible outcomes from reviewing the activity against the three categories and the procedures in place:

Outcome A: No ethical issues

1 In the case of the module leader also being a supervisor, another nominated person will sign the review.

132

This is a rare occurrence (i.e. applicable to those students not dealing with points 1-3 above), but if so – the student will proceed automatically.

Outcome B: Minor ethical issues which have been addressed and concerns resolved

This is most common. It is the responsibility of the student to identify any ethical issues and to propose responses. These should be summarised in a short paragraph on the ethical approval form. The marking tutor (in this case, the research supervisor) will check this and if satisfied will tick box 2. The module leader will review and sign off on the recommendation. In the case where the marking tutor is the module leader, another nominated person will be asked to countersign.

Outcome C: Major ethical issues which have been addressed and concerns resolved

This sometimes occurs but rarely in our line of research. However, if you have proposed research that involves (for example):

Particular situations of elevated personal risk (e.g. by going out to do solo re-search on the streets, or with people who are drunk in town).

Particular risky environments (e.g. by carrying out research in prisons or high secure units).

People classified as ‘higher risk’ such as dangerous offenders.

We would expect a greater level of detail in your proposal on how you intend to attend to these significant issues. The marking tutor and the module leader may ask you to come in for a review meeting to explore further the ethical issues and to talk, face to face, about your resolutions.

Activities that meet this outcome are reported to the Faculty Research Ethics Committee for information.

Outcome D: Ethical issues that have not been resolved

The module team will not approve research proposals that include:

1. Gathering information about human beings through: Interviewing, Surveying, Questionnaires, Observation of human behaviour

2. Using archived data in which individuals are identifiable3. Researching into illegal activities, activities at the margins of the law or activities

that have a risk of injury4. Research with young people.

But exclude (1) any explanation of ethical issues and/or (2) proposed strategies to tackle these, in their assignment.

133

You will not be able to proceed with your study and will have to resubmit your assignment with the necessary revisions. In some cases, you may need to attend an ethical review meeting with the supervision tutor and the module leader.

If the issues are not resolved, the matter will be referred to the Faculty Research Ethics Committee.

If you have any questions about the ethical review process, please ask your supervision tutor in the first instance or contact the module leader.

Annette Crisp email [email protected]

134


Documents

Work Based Project In Policing - National Police Library ...library.college.police.uk/docs/Opportunities-to... · Web viewBefore data collection commenced, ethical approval was gained