What is Leadership

"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.....
Sorry. I know your pissed off with all the things you have described above. Thank You for putting up with my questions.

I mean is there any equivalent of an "after action review" (i.e. the tactical aspects) and when does it happen.
 
Again, why? That's a huge logical leap that you haven't explained and I don't think anyone else on the thread agrees.
There are several who do agree and I’m getting far more likes to dislikes.
@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.
Why does that not surprise me? You have a leadership culture which is entirely based on rank transactional leadership where leaders rely on the positional power of rank to impose their will. Ideas flow downwards from the top, there’s no incentive to show initiative.

The situation is exacerbated because you have a relatively small, closed pool from which to select leaders, the leadership selection process selects the next generation in the image of the current one and the behaviours of those with ambition to lead are shaped by the promotion competition. No one really trusts them; they follow them because they have to. So when they make inevitable mistakes, their power evaporates

Transformational leaders who set a clear strategic vision that reaches down through the organisation don’t need to rely on positional power. They build their power by consensus, by empowering and developing those below them to deliver the shared vision. People follow them because they want to not because they have to. So when they make the inevitable mistakes they have a bank of trust and power which, although it may be eroded, does not evaporate.

Which is why @Caecilius, I believe that if the principals and board of Met provided genuine strategic transformational leadership Mackey would have had space to manage this without eroding what little trust there is between rank and file and senior leadership
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Which is why @Caecilius, I believe that if the principals and board of Met provided genuine strategic transformational leadership Mackey would have had space to manage this without eroding what little trust there is between rank and file and senior leadership

I still don't think you've explained that. You've just stated your belief in more words.

People follow them because they want to not because they have to. So when they make the inevitable mistakes they have a bank of trust and power which, although it may be eroded, does not evaporate.
I would contend, as others on the thread are also doing, that the minimum standard for a leader at any level in either the military or the police is to abide by the values of the organisation. Whether he provides strategic leadership on top of that is a different matter.

I think the thought experiment with Bill Slim I outlined earlier is useful. Would we be calling for his resignation if he'd done the same as Mackey? I reckon we would, despite his strategic leadership.

You clearly don't think this is true, but you haven't really explained why it's the case that transformational leaders aren't expected to show the basic leadership characteristics of an organisation. Why are those at the top not bound by the standards they impose on those below them?

If it is the case that great leaders get away with violating basic standards, are there any examples of this in practice in either the military or police (from any country)?
 
Sorry. I know your pissed off with all the things you have described above. Thank You for putting up with my questions.

I mean is there any equivalent of an "after action review" (i.e. the tactical aspects) and when does it happen.
I'm fine, I resigned and now have a job where I Don't out up with the fuckwittery on a daily basis anymore. Oddly j was chatting with a old colleague who now runs a very successful business, and we both were chuckling about stupid leaders and 'doesn't everyone who leaves suddenly look healthier'.

Yes, there are after action reviews.

Whether they are any use is another matter. The "response to the London riots' one seemed a large self-exculpatory exercise , which didn't mention as problems the misuse of resources at tactical level and strategic decision to withdraw from certain areas of South London. It's a public document, bit of Google will turn it up.

But lessons were learned.
 
When administration takes precedence over leadership then the performance of the institution will decline.

This was said to me many years ago and at the time I thought the speaker was talking out of her aged and well-padded derriere. With time and experience I have come to believe she was absolutely correct. I have recently been watching a number of videos of presentations by various souls on the problems of the US forces by comparing their performance in WW2 to the present campaigns and they seem to be making much the same point.

I have no doubt that the higher echelons of institutions such as the military and police are infected with politics rather than any real attempt to undertake their primary tasks. While politicians are too proud to accept they are wrong and senior military and police are too afraid to tell them they are wrong for fear of being left out of the next promotion round there can only be one way for the institution to go - down!
 
There are several who do agree and I’m getting far more likes to dislikes.

Why does that not surprise me? You have a leadership culture which is entirely based on rank transactional leadership where leaders rely on the positional power of rank to impose their will. Ideas flow downwards from the top, there’s no incentive to show initiative.

The situation is exacerbated because you have a relatively small, closed pool from which to select leaders, the leadership selection process selects the next generation in the image of the current one and the behaviours of those with ambition to lead are shaped by the promotion competition. No one really trusts them; they follow them because they have to. So when they make inevitable mistakes, their power evaporates

Transformational leaders who set a clear strategic vision that reaches down through the organisation don’t need to rely on positional power. They build their power by consensus, by empowering and developing those below them to deliver the shared vision. People follow them because they want to not because they have to. So when they make the inevitable mistakes they have a bank of trust and power which, although it may be eroded, does not evaporate.

Which is why @Caecilius, I believe that if the principals and board of Met provided genuine strategic transformational leadership Mackey would have had space to manage this without eroding what little trust there is between rank and file and senior leadership
Once again, it is principLEs (the other one was boss man at your school! )
 
When administration takes precedence over leadership then the performance of the institution will decline.
Compare and contrast with Wavell (and I hold my hand up to blurring the Military/CIVPOL line in advance.

“The more I see of war, the more I realize how it all depends on administration
and transportation . . . It takes little skill or imagination to see where you would
like your army to be and when; it takes much more knowledge and hard work to
know where you can place your forces and whether you can maintain them there."
--
General A. C. P. Wavell, quoted in Martin Van Creveld’s
Supply War, Logistics from Wallenstein to Patton (1977)
EDIT I got it from here not the book: Link
 
Compare and contrast with Wavell (and I hold my hand up to blurring the Military/CIVPOL line in advance.

EDIT I got it from here not the book: Link
I'll see your Wavell and raise you Napoleon:

"The moral is to the physical as three to one" :-D

In fairness to Wavell, he also said:

"The man is the first weapon of battle"
 
You clearly don't think this is true, but you haven't really explained why it's the case that transformational leaders aren't expected to show the basic leadership characteristics of an organisation. Why are those at the top not bound by the standards they impose on those below them?
I haven’t once suggested that transformational leaders are not bound by the same standards as those they lead, simply that they build a capital of goodwill and referent power that gives them leeway when they occasionally fall short.

In Mackey’s case, I’m not convinced that he did fall short of either the values espoused in Metropolitan Police Vision and Values statement. I don’t think you or any of the others on the coward bandwagon have proven your case (and nor did the coroner).

My point is more subtle; leaders who lead through positional power have no leeway. When they use values and standards statements as a code against which they judge and discipline others for being human, they loose any credibility they had.

I think that is the situation Mackey finds himself in. Rank and file officers are routinely being disciplined for failings and the perception is that this is unfair. So any perceived failing by a senior officer will cause outrage.

Incidentally, the Mets Vision and Values statement doesn’t stand much scrutiny. It’s vague, unquantifiable and time free. It’s not a vision around which a senior leadership team will coalesce, let alone one which will reach down with any credibility.

As for you Slim comparator, I think it’s largely irrelevant. I’m also inclined to think that any military comparator is dubious.
 
Once again, it is principLEs (the other one was boss man at your school! )
I went to a school that had a Headmaster, not a principal with a title derived from the principles of political correctness. The Headmaster has strong principles so we were taught to read properly. But let’s give the Headmaster his modern title and call hi a Principal.

One of the principles that the principal taught us was that, if we were to be pedantic, at least be right. Like the Commissioner and Deputy Commsioner, he and the Deputy Head sat on the school Board and could be referred to as “the principals”. It would thus have been correct to refer to their collective as “the principals and Board of”, which I think you will find was the phrase I used.

The principal protagonists in this thread are conducting an interesting debate on the principles of leadership. If your principal reason for posting is pedantry I suggest you adopt the principle of silence.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t once suggested that transformational leaders are not bound by the same standards as those they lead, simply that they build a capital of goodwill and referent power that gives them leeway when they occasionally fall short.

In Mackey’s case, I’m not convinced that he did fall short of either the values espoused in Metropolitan Police Vision and Values statement. I don’t think you or any of the others on the coward bandwagon have proven your case (and nor did the coroner).

My point is more subtle; leaders who lead through positional power have no leeway. When they use values and standards statements as a code against which they judge and discipline others for being human, they loose any credibility they had.

I think that is the situation Mackey finds himself in. Rank and file officers are routinely being disciplined for failings and the perception is that this is unfair. So any perceived failing by a senior officer will cause outrage.

Incidentally, the Mets Vision and Values statement doesn’t stand much scrutiny. It’s vague, unquantifiable and time free. It’s not a vision around which a senior leadership team will coalesce, let alone one which will reach down with any credibility.

As for you Slim comparator, I think it’s largely irrelevant. I’m also inclined to think that any military comparator is dubious.
What is the material difference between stopping someone trying to stab you on a battlefield and stopping someone trying to stab you outside the Houses of Parliament? In both cases it requires a similar mindset, physical capability and level of courage and it requires the same degree of leadership from senior ranks - if anything it's tougher for the police because the soldier's expecting it whereas the police may have to turn it on straight after helping an old dear cross the road.
 
I went to a school that had a Headmaster, not a principal with a title derived from the principles of political correctness. The Headmaster has strong principles so we were taught to read properly. But let’s give the Headmaster his modern title and call hi a Principal.

One of the principles that the principal taught us was that, if we were to be pedantic, at least be right. Like the Commissioner and Deputy Commsioner, he and the Deputy Head sat on the school Board and could be referred to as “the principals”. It would thus have been correct to refer to their collective as “the principals and Board of”, which I think you will find was the phrase I used.

The principal protagonists in this thread are conducting an interesting debate on the principles of leadership. If your principal reason for posting is pedantry I suggest you adopt the principle of silence.
Is this one of those times you say: sorry for writing such a long note, I didn't have time to write a short one
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top