What is Leadership

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'.
I’ve read it. I’m stuffed if I can see what a book about product placement has to do with strategic leadership.

Of course reputation is all in the customer relationship but that is not what we are talking about here. There are plenty of commercially successful business leaders who have a pretty dire reputation amongst their employees.

If very senior police officers including Mackey provided effective strategic leadership, his actions at Westminster would not have caused anything like the dissent they have. The issues that @ex_colonial highlighted so succinctly wouldn’t arise and Mackey’s actions would be such a loadstone for dissatisfaction with the senior leadership.
 
Really what choice do his senior officer peers and his boss have, other than to express public support for him and his actions.
Loyalty to ones' peers, subordinates and seniors diminishes with altitude. Real, actual, sacrificial loyalty, that is. You'll see it in the financial pages daily, and in all the parliamentary reports. Words; honeyed ones, are common in these cases, and they include lots of silent, deadly bee-stings.
 
Really what choice do his senior officer peers and his boss have, other than to express public support for him and his actions.
If they believe what he did was wrong, they only have one honest choice; get rid and do it straight away whatever the cost. Anything else would be highly damaging to the credibility of the entire senior leadership cadre.

If they believe what he did was right, then they have to defend him and make it clear why they are doing so; again anything else is highly damaging to the credibility of the senior leadership cadre.

What we have is far too little far too late; a classic compormise which satisfies no-one. The damage has been done, whether or not Mackey was right or wrong. Meanwhile, the Assistant Commissioner role is in limbo until he retires in December and Dick has expended some of her bank of personal power on defending a lane duck.

Once again it boils down to dreadful strategic leadership.
 
@bobthebuilder

Problem is, in my opinion the senior ranks of the Job have been hermetically sealed for some time.

I could give anecdotal evidence of the dismissive attitude of seniors to the opinions of staff, and cavalier approach to the retention of skilled officers.

I directly witnessed a senior ignore threat intelligence because it "sent the wrong message" to send warnings out to all officers.

So sadly, I find incidents like Westminster and those that will come entirely predictable when you have senior ranks who simply do not care about (a) their staff, (b) the public or (c) anything which gets in the way of their next promotion.
 
I’ve read it. I’m stuffed if I can see what a book about product placement has to do with strategic leadership.

Of course reputation is all in the customer relationship but that is not what we are talking about here. There are plenty of commercially successful business leaders who have a pretty dire reputation amongst their employees.

If very senior police officers including Mackey provided effective strategic leadership, his actions at Westminster would not have caused anything like the dissent they have. The issues that @ex_colonial highlighted so succinctly wouldn’t arise and Mackey’s actions would be such a loadstone for dissatisfaction with the senior leadership.
Providing 'strategic leadership' does not absolve senior leaders from the obligation to represent corporate values and 'live the brand'. One of the corporate values of a decent police force is to get stuck in when required and there is a general consensus that they certainly shouldn't run away.

Further, reputation is not simply about customer relationships, it affects an organisation's entire stakeholder group, not least investors, regulators and legislators.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
If very senior police officers including Mackey provided effective strategic leadership, his actions at Westminster would not have caused anything like the dissent they have.
Again, why? That's a huge logical leap that you haven't explained and I don't think anyone else on the thread agrees with.

Providing 'strategic leadership' does not absolve senior leaders from the obligation to represent corporate values and 'live the brand'. One of the corporate values of a decent police force is to get stuck in when required and there is a general consensus that they certainly shouldn't run away.
Quite.
 
@bobthebuilder

Problem is, in my opinion the senior ranks of the Job have been hermetically sealed for some time.

I could give anecdotal evidence of the dismissive attitude of seniors to the opinions of staff, and cavalier approach to the retention of skilled officers.

I directly witnessed a senior ignore threat intelligence because it "sent the wrong message" to send warnings out to all officers.

So sadly, I find incidents like Westminster and those that will come entirely predictable when you have senior ranks who simply do not care about (a) their staff, (b) the public or (c) anything which gets in the way of their next promotion.
Out of interest, at what point in the rank structure does this ‘wall’ start between ‘us and them?’
 
I have just read a book called "The Governors" about legendary senior detectives in the Met written by an ex detective sergeant Dick Kirby. The book examines the careers of ten senior officers who ran major investigations and managed cid operations. Without exception these men achieved their success by having very good arrest records initially and judges and commissioners commendations. None of them had degrees but they were all detectives and leaders. What has gone wrong I bet none of them would have locked themselves in a car when a colleague was being attacked
 
Out of interest, at what point in the rank structure does this ‘wall’ start between ‘us and them?’
Well, I have seen at start at PC when fliers begrudge doing their two year probation.

Two years plus one day, they get Sgt.

Four year plus one, Inspector.

Along the way they get top postings and any attachments they want to "gain experience". The rest of us tidying up after them.

So to misquote The Royal Marines,

4FAC863500000578-6127939-image-a-15_1536007260000.jpg
 
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.
The standard by which all police officers should be judged and the basis for most police misconduct hearings.

http://www.college.police.uk/What-we-do/Ethics/Documents/Code_of_Ethics.pdf
 
Last edited:
How and when will the Met review this incident? Do they wait for the trials and coroners inquiry to finish or has it already been done?
Well yes, but that and acquittals never get in the way of discipline hearings for junior officers.

:)

Sorry, the bosses have been knobs for decades and now one of theirs have been caught out they are just blatantly saying "F U" to the less senior officers.

They bent the rules and tarred and feathered anyone who it suited them; just seldom have they been caught in such naked hypocrisy.
 
Well yes, but that and acquittals never get in the way of discipline hearings for junior officers.

:)

Sorry, the bosses have been knobs for decades and now one of theirs have been caught out they are just blatantly saying "F U" to the less senior officers.

They bent the rules and tarred and feathered anyone who it suited them; just seldom have they been caught in such naked hypocrisy.
So no disciplinary but the lessons learned are deferred until after the Coroners Inquiry?
 
So no disciplinary but the lessons learned are deferred until after the Coroners Inquiry?
"Lessons are always learned", even when they are not.

Discipline hearings are on a lessor standard of proof, so you can be acquitted at court and convicted on a disciple charge.

Funny how that doesn't apply up really.....
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top