What is Leadership

I am acutely aware of that Boumer. 2.5 years left and counting. It was more a comment towards 21st of Foot......who is supposedly a leader......and has expressed at length his views on leadership at tactical and strategic level.......showing that the 'pleb' attitude is still very much alive.
I should have put the irony script on :)

Stay safe, i resigned. So much happier, but my pension was screwed. Easier to just start again.
 
I should have put the irony script on :)

Stay safe, i resigned. So much happier, but my pension was screwed. Easier to just start again.
I'm one of the lucky few on the old pension.....add in my divorce settlement and I can't afford to go. I'm also lucky enough to be a specialist, although even on my team morale is as low as I've ever seen.
 
I think we're seeing people with a very different perspective on life.
On the one hand there are those who think in terms of grand strategies and controlling large organisations, stakeholders and 'those who count' and on the other we have 'people' people, who value individuals and see organisations as mechanisms for organising individual people, but who value the individual people rather than any organisation.
 
I'm one of the lucky few on the old pension.....add in my divorce settlement and I can't afford to go. I'm also lucky enough to be a specialist, although even on my team morale is as low as I've ever seen.



Reading this and "Boumer's" response re. the state of morale in our Police farce, sorry service, should make all reading them worry for the future. It confirms the same worries that other Police I know or know of, have for the future of the police. The rot of politicisation seems to have started quite a time ago, it coalesced probably just before or around the time of the Macpherson where the term "institutional racism" was coined, erroneously IMHO, as the Police were targeting groups who were overtly criminal, not just because they were black but because they were the ethnicity most likely to be involved as shown by crime statistics.
Numerous politicians in their increasing desire to be seen as politically correct & inclusive to the incomers of all hues, ethnicities & religions, have further pandered to this attitude, allowing the formation of things like the "Black Police Association" to form, to where May's ludicrous comment whilst Home Secretary saying" many Britons “benefit a great deal” from Sharia Law" , when we have what was probably the most respected legal system in the world.
Changing from a FORCE to a SERVICE is
Blairs pathetic PCSO initiative, the pathetic & costly Police & Crime Commissioner farce introduced in 2012, pandering to all the strident minority groups, all while cutting Police numbers/ budgets whilst the population has increased by millions and true serious crime figures have soared.
This all while virtually the only Police to get to senior rank have to be seen to be ticking all the various pc boxes that their political masters want and throwing out those who are good robust thief takers/crime stoppers, as they are too robust for the delicate sensibilities of the snowflakes.
With the virtually unfettered immigration from Europe and many other quarters, criminals of all sorts now see the UK as the softest target, further enhanced by the seeming inability/unwillingness to deport these scum even after they have been detected, prosecuted & found guilty but allow them to stay putting yet further burdens on our overstretched economy.
Since the Duggan riots, where large parts of our capital city were overrun by criminals, the situation has worsened and I feel anarchy could run amok in many of our "enriched" towns & cities. I see no current politician with either the balls or will to stop this, however I am sure they will ensure that they stay safe at all costs & tough for the rest of us. Mackey is just a prime example of what our SPO have become.
This is a good article on it from a few years ago London riots: Metropolitan Police is more service provider than a force
snip "The legitimacy of the police in Britain has traditionally been founded not on conformity but on impartiality"
Where the police were there to protect life & property, deter, detect & prosecute crimes IRRESPECTIVE OF RACE, COLOUR, CLASS OR CREED!
 
Well put.

That’s a very simplistic view of leadership; functional leadership of small teams, very much in the Adair mould. It’s fine until you start leading organisations where the leader cannot know what individual members of the organisations do.

It’s also a leadership model that encourages transactional leadership. It doesn’t matter whether the leader operates by “do as I do” or “do as I say”; if the culture is transactional, I other words “do it right and you’ll be rewarded,, but do it wrong and you’ll be punished”, the leader’s ability to shape an organisation is limited. He or she has no chance of successfully driving change.

I think you need to read more widely than the standard military texts on leadership to understand how strategic leaders succeed and why people follow them. If Mackey and his ilk provided a compelling vision, put the people in place to deliver it, persuaded the wider stakeholders to support it, empowered their reportees and nurtured those beneath to develop it etc etc , there would be no need for example setting.

Strategic leadership is about far more than “getting people to do what you want them to do” and strategic leaders who take that approach universally fail.
I'm talking about the specifics of this incident and how it relates to leadership. If a leader is seen to fail at a core competency by those he aspires to lead, he tends not to last very long, regardless of everything else - at least in the private sector.

Once you move beyond direct personal leadership, you're into the realms of reputation management as a key component of projecting your authority within your organisation. If you're leading people who might have to face extreme violence, the basics of reputation management tell you that you can't run if you face a similar situation.

You seem to be coming to this argument from a very theoretical PC public sector HR direction. No-one's leading any organisation anywhere effectively if they're not respected, even if that respect is engendered at one remove through reputation and perception rather that direct experience of the individual. If you understand the concept of informal corporate networks and how they work, you'll understand exactly why.
 
Reading this and "Boumer's" response re. the state of morale in our Police farce, sorry service, should make all reading them worry for the future. It confirms the same worries that other Police I know or know of, have for the future of the police. The rot of politicisation seems to have started quite a time ago, it coalesced probably just before or around the time of the Macpherson where the term "institutional racism" was coined, erroneously IMHO, as the Police were targeting groups who were overtly criminal, not just because they were black but because they were the ethnicity most likely to be involved as shown by crime statistics.
Numerous politicians in their increasing desire to be seen as politically correct & inclusive to the incomers of all hues, ethnicities & religions, have further pandered to this attitude, allowing the formation of things like the "Black Police Association" to form, to where May's ludicrous comment whilst Home Secretary saying" many Britons “benefit a great deal” from Sharia Law" , when we have what was probably the most respected legal system in the world.
Changing from a FORCE to a SERVICE is
Blairs pathetic PCSO initiative, the pathetic & costly Police & Crime Commissioner farce introduced in 2012, pandering to all the strident minority groups, all while cutting Police numbers/ budgets whilst the population has increased by millions and true serious crime figures have soared.
This all while virtually the only Police to get to senior rank have to be seen to be ticking all the various pc boxes that their political masters want and throwing out those who are good robust thief takers/crime stoppers, as they are too robust for the delicate sensibilities of the snowflakes.
With the virtually unfettered immigration from Europe and many other quarters, criminals of all sorts now see the UK as the softest target, further enhanced by the seeming inability/unwillingness to deport these scum even after they have been detected, prosecuted & found guilty but allow them to stay putting yet further burdens on our overstretched economy.
Since the Duggan riots, where large parts of our capital city were overrun by criminals, the situation has worsened and I feel anarchy could run amok in many of our "enriched" towns & cities. I see no current politician with either the balls or will to stop this, however I am sure they will ensure that they stay safe at all costs & tough for the rest of us. Mackey is just a prime example of what our SPO have become.
This is a good article on it from a few years ago London riots: Metropolitan Police is more service provider than a force
snip "The legitimacy of the police in Britain has traditionally been founded not on conformity but on impartiality"
Where the police were there to protect life & property, deter, detect & prosecute crimes IRRESPECTIVE OF RACE, COLOUR, CLASS OR CREED!
You really should try Chlorpromazine, it really would help.
 
I think we're seeing people with a very different perspective on life.
On the one hand there are those who think in terms of grand strategies and controlling large organisations, stakeholders and 'those who count' and on the other we have 'people' people, who value individuals and see organisations as mechanisms for organising individual people, but who value the individual people rather than any organisation.
Either/Or or two ends of a scale?
 
I think we're seeing people with a very different perspective on life.
On the one hand there are those who think in terms of grand strategies and controlling large organisations, stakeholders and 'those who count' and on the other we have 'people' people, who value individuals and see organisations as mechanisms for organising individual people, but who value the individual people rather than any organisation.
What's happening is the left of centre belief that it's all about systems is clashing with the empirical experience that personality matters and no system is robust enough to offset the challenges of being run by a clown.

The Met Police hierarchy valued Mackey for his reliability of view, the downside of promoting on that basis was demonstrated when the critter took to the hills.

No matter how big the organisation, if you're senior enough, your reputation will precede you
 
What's happening is the left of centre belief that it's all about systems is clashing with the empirical experience that personality matters and no system is robust enough to offset the challenges of being run by a clown.

The Met Police hierarchy valued Mackey for his reliability of view, the downside of promoting on that basis was demonstrated when the critter took to the hills.

No matter how big the organisation, if you're senior enough, your reputation will precede you
This is in a broader context? Addressing the sort of issues that @Boumer has been relating were extant in the rank and file before the incident?
 
This is in a broader context? Addressing the sort of issues that @Boumer has been relating were extant in the rank and file before the incident?
I think it's all inter-related. The 'warrior ethos', which the police requires, although not to the same extent as the armed forces, requires a certain style of leadership which is not terribly fashionable and which is at odds with the requirements of a political elite which likes their instruments of enforcement to be compliant.
 
I think it's all inter-related. The 'warrior ethos', which the police requires, although not to the same extent as the armed forces, requires a certain style of leadership which is not terribly fashionable and which is at odds with the requirements of a political elite which likes their instruments of enforcement to be compliant.
So "Warrior Ethos" in the manner of the US Law Enforcement with the ex-military kit and so on?
 
What's happening is the left of centre belief that it's all about systems is clashing with the empirical experience that personality matters and no system is robust enough to offset the challenges of being run by a clown.

The Met Police hierarchy valued Mackey for his reliability of view, the downside of promoting on that basis was demonstrated when the critter took to the hills.

No matter how big the organisation, if you're senior enough, your reputation will precede you
Can I ask you specifically about the SOP for Firearms and Public order linked upthread? Do they fall into your category of systems?
 
You seem to be coming to this argument from a very theoretical PC public sector HR direction. No-one's leading any organisation anywhere effectively if they're not respected, even if that respect is engendered at one remove through reputation and perception rather that direct experience of the individual. If you understand the concept of informal corporate networks and how they work, you'll understand exactly why.
No, I’m coming at the arguement from a strategic leadership perspective, with an understanding from education, reading, training and practice of instituonal leadership. I have never been involved in public sector strategic leadership; my Army career finished after command and I have subsequently been in industry at Board level.

Ive never read a book or paper which postulates that reputation and reputation management are constituent part of strategic organisational leadership. They aren’t. Every text suggests that vision is the imperative

As @twentyfirstoffoot noted, the people that matter don’t think Mackey did wrong or that his position is untenable. The people the matter most at his level are the Metropolitan Police Board members and their immediate reports; those that have executive responsibility for leading and managing the police. Those are the people Commissioner actually leads functionally. Next up, the population and upwards stakeholders including ministers, MOPAC etc. Yes strategic leaders lead upwards and sideways too.

His action or lack of it is a great excuse for shimfing and outrage but it makes bugger all difference to his ability to do his job. I very much doubt it makes much difference to performance amongst the R&F who have several layers of leadership in between.

I think the public sector as a whole suffers because it is lead by internally promoted managers who practice functional leadership. It’s particularly bad in the uniformed services which almost by default promote functional leaders who rely on the positional power of their rank and singularly fail to create a vision around which their organisation converges.
 
No, I’m coming at the arguement from a strategic leadership perspective, with an understanding from education, reading, training and practice of instituonal leadership. I have never been involved in public sector strategic leadership; my Army career finished after command and I have subsequently been in industry at Board level.

Ive never read a book or paper which postulates that reputation and reputation management are constituent part of strategic organisational leadership. They aren’t. Every text suggests that vision is the imperative

As @twentyfirstoffoot noted, the people that matter don’t think Mackey did wrong or that his position is untenable. The people the matter most at his level are the Metropolitan Police Board members and their immediate reports; those that have executive responsibility for leading and managing the police. Those are the people Commissioner actually leads functionally. Next up, the population and upwards stakeholders including ministers, MOPAC etc. Yes strategic leaders lead upwards and sideways too.

His action or lack of it is a great excuse for shimfing and outrage but it makes bugger all difference to his ability to do his job. I very much doubt it makes much difference to performance amongst the R&F who have several layers of leadership in between.

I think the public sector as a whole suffers because it is lead by internally promoted managers who practice functional leadership. It’s particularly bad in the uniformed serviceswhich almost by default promote functional leaders who rely on the positional power of their rank and singularly fail to create a vision around which their organisation converges.
For me what you are talking about is management which is in many cases very different to leadership.
 
For me what you are talking about is management which is in many cases very different to leadership.
No, managers develop and manage process. Strategic leaders set the vision around which managers operate. The principals in any Board level organisation, be it the Metropolitan Police Board, the Army Board or a Corporate Board or any other strategic governance body provide and enable the long term vision.

Functional leaders provide day to day leadership below the strategic level.

I’ve posted several references defining strategic leadership on here.
 
Either/Or or two ends of a scale?
My apologies. You asked a previous question about 'bullet or . . . ' and I didn't answer it because I didn't understand if you were asking something or making a joke I didn't get.

As to this question, I think it's a scale with most people being toward the extremes and most of them at the 'failed' end.
 
No, managers develop and manage process. Strategic leaders set the vision around which managers operate. The principals in any Board level organisation, be it the Metropolitan Police Board, the Army Board or a Corporate Board or any other strategic governance body provide and enable the long term vision.

Functional leaders provide day to day leadership below the strategic level.

I’ve posted several references defining strategic leadership on here.
I don't really understand this strategic leadership thing but if he has no operational role, I fail to see what possible need there could be to get back to his office to provide grand strategic vision regarding this incident.

Regardless of how much time he had, he did not panic and did not 'do nothing'.

We have two sorts of mind apparently; one instinctive which makes wrong decisions much of the time and a reasoning/logical one which can often better make a 'correct' decision.

He did not make an instinctive decision, or if he did, it was overridden by the reasoned one, which was to lock the doors and keep himself and the others in the car, from harm. There's no other reason to lock the doors.

If ARRSE is anything to go by, most people think that, instinctively, the 'right' thing to do would be to try to help an injured colleague. Something to be expected from a man and especially from a man who wears the same uniform and thus appears to most, to be duty bound. Regardless of what they'd do themselves in actuality, they'd hope to do the 'right' thing and feel ashamed if they did not.

Many people also seem to think that a reasoned decision to protect himself and effectively ignore an injured colleague, suggests cowardice and is possibly worse than if he had flapped and done nothing or ran away.

I think your way of looking at things is to seek justification for incorrect and bad decision-making - to excuse.

A different view from mine and not necessarily wrong.

** It should be noted that I consider 'right' and 'wrong' to be subjective and according to each person's moral code, different from 'correct/incorrect' and from 'legal/illegal'. And certainly different from 'justified/unjustified'.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top