What is Leadership

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I’ve posted several references defining strategic leadership on here.
But he isn't just a strategic leader, as the response of the rank and file reported by @Boumer and others shows. He's meant to lead by example and embody the standards of the organisation as well.

I suspect the police don't have a service test equivalent, but have the actions of Mackey adversely affected the operational effectiveness of the police? Absolutely they have. A (further) reduction in the confidence junior police officers have in their leadership is very damaging.

Sorry, I don't think your contention that he's exempt from the basic standards of police leadership because he's a strategic leader holds water. Not without explaining the leap of logic anyway.
 
I am the sort of leader who can tell the difference between facts and hysteria.
What hysteria? You don't seem to grasp the fact mate, that some of Mackeys most fierciest critics, on this thread, are those at, or who have been at the sharp end of policing.
No one - except The Sun newspaper expected Mackey to go wading in, he is being criticised for leaving the scene, and returning to NSY. Plenty of arrsers have given examples of how he could have helped that day. The title of this thread is 'what is leadership' is it not? I suspect that more people would have respect for Mackey if he actually had just admitted that he had been scared, and had done what a few other officers had done, and legged it.
 
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 must disagree.

The UK Police (and the UK) are not the place for the "warrior ethos".

The problem is the UK is headed for it, simply by lack of numbers. An example would be the LAPD - they had the lowest police to public ratio of any major US city during the 1980s (IIRR). This led to an ethos and tactics in the LAPD which were in the long term counter-productive; not they had any choice. With less officers, more assertive policing had to be used to prevent the perception of backing down. Problem is, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see how this ended up.

No system us perfect, I believe Chicago brought in a police of street level breifings and community invovlement; yet the homicide rate is very high.

Back to the UK. The UK public seem to have a problem with the police use of force; so this is not the time to introduce a "warrior culture". Apart from anything, the "academisation" of policing means you are lucky to be getting people who will get invovled in a roll aroun at a pub.

(But then when the AC locks himself in a car....... You see why I keep going on about the problematic example he has set).

As to either tactical option back up, or spiritual willing - For example, The Home Office declined wider TASER roll-out under Mrs May (possibly due to money, possibly not) around 2013 (IIRR).

I am afraid, it is my opinion and that of many of my colleagues that the job is simply broken. I (and many I speak with) are not sure what the future is. And Frankly, I left; many of my freinds are planning to leave, and others just counting down.

I genuinely have never seen morale so low, across the job.

But, the police didn't break the system. The people who did break it, are succesive Home Secretaries, the HMIC and swathes of compliant senior officers (all desperate to make the next rank or retirement as soon as possible).

And as I consistently say. The loosers are the public, the winners criminals.
 
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.


My bold... these people are the very ones that have allowed our police to become the inept organisation it has become today, where it is regarded by most people to fail on most counts of doing what it was set up to do in the 19thC. These are the numerous pc box tickers who never dare question or publicly disagree with anything their superiors suggest in case it damages their prospects. Hence the continual degradation of a once valued force into the farce it is today, where drug gangs kill & maim almost with impunity in many of our major cities, where knife & gun crime is at an all time high. Where in any large scale disturbance such as the Duggan riots, they lose control of large swathes of cities. Where they allow politicians to cut numbers to dangerous levels without any serious protest or outcry except from a few of the lower echelons. Where being seen to be politically correct was more important than curbing sex grooming gangs until it became embarrassing when various "ultra right groups" pointed it out and the press got involved.
The only ones speaking out against this degradation appears to be those of much lower rank who are most likely to see the problems on the street like this chap.... Police forces are 'failing the public' due to cuts, Police Federation chief warns

So while this creature may not get any criticism from those of his peers, all who seem to be intent on keeping their snouts in the trough at all costs. Those who he and his ilk purport to lead are pretty disgusted with his actions as are most of the public I have spoken to.
 
My bold... these people are the very ones that have allowed our police to become the inept organisation it has become today, where it is regarded by most people to fail on most counts of doing what it was set up to do in the 19thC. These are the numerous pc box tickers who never dare question or publicly disagree with anything their superiors suggest in case it damages their prospects. Hence the continual degradation of a once valued force into the farce it is today, where drug gangs kill & maim almost with impunity in many of our major cities, where knife & gun crime is at an all time high. Where in any large scale disturbance such as the Duggan riots, they lose control of large swathes of cities. Where they allow politicians to cut numbers to dangerous levels without any serious protest or outcry except from a few of the lower echelons. Where being seen to be politically correct was more important than curbing sex grooming gangs until it became embarrassing when various "ultra right groups" pointed it out and the press got involved.
The only ones speaking out against this degradation appears to be those of much lower rank who are most likely to see the problems on the street like this chap.... Police forces are 'failing the public' due to cuts, Police Federation chief warns

So while this creature may not get any criticism from those of his peers, all who seem to be intent on keeping their snouts in the trough at all costs. Those who he and his ilk purport to lead are pretty disgusted with his actions as are most of the public I have spoken to.
That deserves many more likes than I can give.
At the time of the London riots, I thought that there was a risk of criminals realising that they were restrained mainly by their perception that they could not do more without risk. The London riots were significant because criminals and some parts of London realised that the police were no longer able to protect those areas nor prevent serious crime; there seemed to be a reluctance by police to lay into rioters (I assume due to coppers worrying about lack of backup from senior officers, and due to a lack of numbers on some occasions).
The following is not a criticism of officers but of management and politicians: policing in London is now reactive, not preventative. If the police are mainly picking up the pieces, then it's too late for the victims. I'm regularly and frequently in London and Essex and rarely see police officers out and about. On my last visit home, I discussed this with my parents and said that visible policing was still a thing in South Wales. On my return to home here, I saw more police (4, amazingly, inc. 2 mounted officers) within 5 minutes of getting off the train in a small town than in my weekend in London and Essex.
100+ murders, and the increasing concern about crime from those who live, work and visit London, is the real failure of Dick and Mackey, more so than Mackey hiding in his car.
 
Last edited:
I must disagree.

The UK Police (and the UK) are not the place for the "warrior ethos".

The problem is the UK is headed for it, simply by lack of numbers. An example would be the LAPD - they had the lowest police to public ratio of any major US city during the 1980s (IIRR). This led to an ethos and tactics in the LAPD which were in the long term counter-productive; not they had any choice. With less officers, more assertive policing had to be used to prevent the perception of backing down. Problem is, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see how this ended up.

No system us perfect, I believe Chicago brought in a police of street level breifings and community invovlement; yet the homicide rate is very high.

Back to the UK. Certain demographics within the UK public seem to have a problem with the police use of force; Whilst complaining about the high murder rate within their communities so this is not the time to introduce a "warrior culture". Apart from anything, the "academisation" of policing means you are lucky to be getting people who will get invovled in a roll aroun at a pub. Exactly, which is what was predicted would happen.

(But then when the AC locks himself in a car....... You see why I keep going on about the problematic example he has set).

As to either tactical option back up, or spiritual willing - For example, The Home Office declined wider TASER roll-out under Mrs May (possibly due to money, possibly not) around 2013 (IIRR). Sod all to do with money. It's about politics. Kinder, gentler, conservatism that appeals to the young, and immigrant communities.

I am afraid, it is my opinion and that of many of my colleagues that the job is simply broken. I (and many I speak with) are not sure what the future is. And Frankly, I left; many of my freinds are planning to leave, and others just counting down. Sounds familiar mate.

I genuinely have never seen morale so low, across the job. Again, sounds familiar.

But, the police didn't break the system. The people who did break it, are succesive Home Secretaries, the HMIC and swathes of compliant senior officers (all desperate to make the next rank or retirement as soon as possible). BINGO!!!

And as I consistently say. The loosers are the public, the winners criminals.
 
Management is about managing a situation.
Leadership is about making it better.
I'd suggest a slight adjustment. Management is about building and operating a system. Leadership is what you need when the system breaks down, doesn't apply or simply when an example is needed.

In this case, strategic leadership is what was needed afterwards. But there was a more visceral form of leadership called for at that moment...
 
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.
Without some form of respect and trust from those on the "shop floor" a leader whose only focus is strategic will soon have nothing to strategize with. This incident will no doubt have lost that, and his replacement will have to work hard to rebuild that trust.
 
This incident will no doubt have lost that, and his replacement will have to work hard to rebuild that trust.
If the situation between the senior management and the troops at the sharp end, in the police, is anything like what it is within the prison service, then it is already beyond repair.
In the prison service, the average officer sees their SMT as much a part of the opposition as they do the cons.
 
So "Warrior Ethos" in the manner of the US Law Enforcement with the ex-military kit and so on?
No, 'Warrior Ethos' as in the recognition that the application of violence is a demand of the job and that people need to be prepared both physically and psychologically for it, as does the organisation to which they belong and the command/management structure they are required to subject themselves to.
 
Can I ask you specifically about the SOP for Firearms and Public order linked upthread? Do they fall into your category of systems?
I'm not talking about SOPs, I'm talking about the wider corporate culture and the philosophical assumptions which underpin it.
 
I must disagree.

The UK Police (and the UK) are not the place for the "warrior ethos".

The problem is the UK is headed for it, simply by lack of numbers. An example would be the LAPD - they had the lowest police to public ratio of any major US city during the 1980s (IIRR). This led to an ethos and tactics in the LAPD which were in the long term counter-productive; not they had any choice. With less officers, more assertive policing had to be used to prevent the perception of backing down. Problem is, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see how this ended up.

No system us perfect, I believe Chicago brought in a police of street level breifings and community invovlement; yet the homicide rate is very high.

Back to the UK. The UK public seem to have a problem with the police use of force; so this is not the time to introduce a "warrior culture". Apart from anything, the "academisation" of policing means you are lucky to be getting people who will get invovled in a roll aroun at a pub.

(But then when the AC locks himself in a car....... You see why I keep going on about the problematic example he has set).

As to either tactical option back up, or spiritual willing - For example, The Home Office declined wider TASER roll-out under Mrs May (possibly due to money, possibly not) around 2013 (IIRR).

I am afraid, it is my opinion and that of many of my colleagues that the job is simply broken. I (and many I speak with) are not sure what the future is. And Frankly, I left; many of my freinds are planning to leave, and others just counting down.

I genuinely have never seen morale so low, across the job.

But, the police didn't break the system. The people who did break it, are succesive Home Secretaries, the HMIC and swathes of compliant senior officers (all desperate to make the next rank or retirement as soon as possible).

And as I consistently say. The loosers are the public, the winners criminals.
Warrior ethos was shorthand for leadership in situations which required the potential application of violence. I fully accept that there is a specific US interpretation and application which has many shortcomings and is not necessarily applicable or desirable. Nonetheless, the fundamental point remains, if you're going to send men and women into violent situations, leaders issuing the orders must have credibility.
 

diverman

LE
Book Reviewer
Talking to a GMP officer today, he said that he would have got out of the car if only to shout and scream to distract the b'stard and he agrees that Mackey would discipline any officer not going out without PPE. He expects him to get away without any censure. he is throughly disgusted with this 'man'.
 
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
(snip)
Then you're reading the wrong books. If you don't understand reputation, you don't understand positioning and, if you don't understand positioning, you have nothing of strategic value to offer to any commercial organisation.

Here's where everyone starts and you should too:
There's a reason why Caesar wrote 'The Gallic War'.
 
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.
OK, not a joke. I'd genuinely like people to unequivocally state whether they think he should kill himself as a result of his actions, particularly those like you who clearly feel he has failed. If people are of that opinion they should be explicit about it and be prepared to defend it.

Thanks for clarifying the scale thing.
 
OK, not a joke. I'd genuinely like people to unequivocally state whether they think he should kill himself as a result of his actions, particularly those like you who clearly feel he has failed. If people are of that opinion they should be explicit about it and be prepared to defend it.
Are you for real? How do you equate people calling Mackey a 'coward' with asking for him to commit suicide?
You are being over dramatic to say the least.
 
What hysteria? You don't seem to grasp the fact mate, that some of Mackeys most fierciest critics, on this thread, are those at, or who have been at the sharp end of policing.
No one - except The Sun newspaper expected Mackey to go wading in, he is being criticised for leaving the scene, and returning to NSY. Plenty of arrsers have given examples of how he could have helped that day. The title of this thread is 'what is leadership' is it not? I suspect that more people would have respect for Mackey if he actually had just admitted that he had been scared, and had done what a few other officers had done, and legged it.
@Ho2331 Here are those who said he should have in the first few pages of the thread. I also include a "Mess Webley" reference by @simroy

...Had it been me in a similar position I would have got out and tried to assist the PC



Archie


Had it been me in a similar position, had I been a Police officer of any rank I would have got out and tried to assist the PC

Had I been there I would have done something, not sure what but something.


Pass him the mess Webley is all that I can say.
Simroys post was liked by @Falling Plate and @stumpy while @wheel, @Red Hander and @re-stilly though it was funny.

Obviously I don't know what they would do. But my expectation is that it would be something, as opposed to nothing.


I'm not suggesting him getting killed. Walking calmly in cockends direction instructing him to put the knife down might have bought 2 minutes which would have been enough for the arv cavalry to arrive. As the ppos were there it was a non issue.
2 minutes? I'd suggest that this approach with a Jihadi type attacker of any form would result in rapid death. Their objective is to kill as many people as possible before being killed themself.

Not many of those who stepped forward at London Bridge had PPE or even a baton,

but they bought others time to escape or hide. I wonder if this "chief" can looking at himself in the mirror.


London Bridge terror attack heroes among those receiving gallantry awards...

Just what sort of PPE was he expecting?


356463

In the same circs I would like to think that I'd be looking for the car fire extinguisher to use on the assailant, or even chuck floor mats at him.

Also - don't they lock the cars doors automatically in that London. I know I do!
BTW I'm not expecting a response from anyone I have quoted or mentioned. However if I have misquoted you let me know (some posts have been shortened).
 
OK, not a joke. I'd genuinely like people to unequivocally state whether they think he should kill himself as a result of his actions, particularly those like you who clearly feel he has failed. If people are of that opinion they should be explicit about it and be prepared to defend it.

Thanks for clarifying the scale thing.
Good grief, I hope I didn't come across as wishing the man any harm, self-inflicted or otherwise, I certainly didn't mean to.

It's not my place to suggest what, if any, action is taken, and I've merely been putting forward a point of view. Others have a different view and I'm not trying to argue against theirs or to persuade anybody to mine.

In all honesty, I don't care about it, it's just a talking point.
 
OK, not a joke. I'd genuinely like people to unequivocally state whether they think he should kill himself as a result of his actions, particularly those like you who clearly feel he has failed. If people are of that opinion they should be explicit about it and be prepared to defend it.

Thanks for clarifying the scale thing.
OK. I think he made a mistake. Both at the time and in trying to bluff it out later. Should he have resigned? No, at the time I think he should have looked at ways of sorting out some of the mistakes. Later, it seems to have become clear that he's not the resigning type (which is typical 'adverse selection') so it's simple wishful thinking. Should he shoot himself: no, if only because it's a selfish act that someone else has to clear up.

That being said, I think most of us understand that the 'Mess Webley' is a metaphor.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top