PowerPoint Assignment: Leadership

PowerPoint Assignment: Leadership

In a 16–20 slide PowerPoint presentation (excluding title and reference slides) provide information as well as analyze the roles of the following areas in criminal justice leadership strategies and practices:

Organizational culture
Behavioral theory
Planning
Community relations

Your presentation should include, at a minimum, 4 slides, with speaker notes, for each topic. 4 credible sources with used presented in-text

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Research for P r a c t i c e

J
U

N
E

How Police Supervisory Styles Influence Patrol Officer Behavior
0
3

J
U
N
E

This and other publications and products

of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, National Institute

of Justice can be found on the World

Wide Web at the following site:

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 2053

John Ashcroft

Attorney General

Deborah J. Daniels

Assistant Attorney General

Sarah V. Hart

Director, National Institute of Justice

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of
the author and do not reflect the official position or policies of the
U.S. Department of Justice.

This study was conducted using information from the Project on Policing
Neighborhoods, directed by Stephen D. Mastrofski, Roger B. Parks, Albert
J. Reiss, Jr., and Robert E. Worden. The project was supported by the
National Institute of Justice under grant number 95–IJ–CX–0071.

Support for this research was provided through a transfer of funds to NIJ
from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

JUNE 03

How Police Supervisory Styles Influence
Patrol Officer Behavior

Acknowledgments

The author would like
to thank Stephen D.
Mastrofski, William
Falcon, and Karen
Sherman for their

valuable insights and
numerous contributions

to this document.

NCJ 194078

R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

ABOUT THIS REPORT

When police officers put their
cruisers in gear, how much
will their field supervisor’s
style of supervision influence
their performance when they
deal with a fight in progress
or an ongoing community
problem?

A recent study found that
a field supervisor’s style may
have a profound impact on
patrol officer behavior. That’s
particularly true of the “active”
style of supervision identified
by the research.

What did the
researchers find?
The study uncovered some
surprising patterns in supervi-
sory styles and patrol officer
behavior. Four supervisory
styles emerged from the
research. The style identified
as active was more likely
than the others to influence
officer behavior. This influ-
ence can be either positive
or negative; for example, it
can inspire subordinates to
engage in more problem-
solving activities, or it can
result in more frequent use
of force. An active super-
visory style was also the
most conducive to imple-
menting community policing
goals.

What were the study’s
limitations?
This research did not meas-
ure long-term patterns of
supervision or address how
supervisors communicate
their priorities. It did not
address mixed supervisory
styles or explore whether
supervisors adjust their
styles in reaction to the offi-
cers they are assigned to
supervise. For example, a
squad with younger officers
would most likely require a
different supervisory style
than one with more sea-
soned officers.

Study data came from urban
police departments that
were implementing problem-
solving/community policing
strategies. These findings
may not apply to smaller,
rural departments or those
that are not implementing
new strategies.

Who should read this
study?
Police administrators, mid-
level managers, field super-
visors, and researchers,
particularly those who focus
on police organizations and
management.

P O L I C E S U P E R V I S O R Y S T Y L E S

Robin Shepard Engel

About the Author

Robin Shepard Engel,
Ph.D., is associate

professor of criminal
justice at the University

of Cincinnati.

This report is based on
three journal articles by
the author. Readers may

refer to the articles for
details on research find-

ings and methodology
(see “Recommended

Reading”).

Does field supervision of
patrol officers matter?
Chances are that personal
experience, common sense,
and intuition would elicit a
quick “yes” from most police
administrators and managers.
But does street-level evi-
dence justify that viewpoint?

The answer is a qualified yes,
according to recent field
research. Research findings
not only confirm that view
but also shed light on how
frontline supervisory styles
can influence such patrol
officer behavior as making
arrests, issuing citations,
using force, and engaging
in community policing.

The study involved field
observations of and inter-
views with sergeants and
lieutenants who directly
supervised patrol officers
in the Indianapolis, Indiana,
Police Department and the
St. Petersburg, Florida, Police
Department. The research
is based on data from the
Project on Policing Neigh-
borhoods (POPN), a 2-year
research project sponsored
by the National Institute of

Justice that broadly examined
policing issues, especially the
effects of community policing
initiatives on police and the
public (see “The Project on
Policing Neighborhoods”).

The most important finding
was that style or quality of
field supervision can signifi-
cantly influence patrol officer
behavior, quite apart from
quantity of supervision.1

Frontline supervision by
sergeants and lieutenants
can influence some patrol
officer behavior, but the
study found that this influ-
ence varies according to
the style of supervision. An
“active” supervisory style—
involving leading by exam-
ple—seems to be most
influential despite potential
drawbacks. Indeed, active
supervisors appear to be cru-
cial to the implementation of
organizational goals.

This report in NIJ’s Research
for Practice series addresses
three principal questions:

■ What are the four supervi-
sory styles identified by the
research?

How Police Supervisory Styles
Influence Patrol Officer Behavior

R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

■ How do those styles influ-
ence patrol officer behavior?

■ What are the implications
for departmental policy and
practice?

Frontline supervisory
styles
The study’s field observa-
tions and interviews identi-
fied four main supervisory
styles: traditional, innovative,
supportive, and active. Super-
visor characteristics include
personal features such as

age as well as level of train-
ing and experience (see
exhibit 1). Each of the four
styles encompasses about
25 percent of the 81 field
supervisors (see exhibit 2).
In general, none of the four
supervisory styles was found
to be ideal. Each style has
benefits and drawbacks. (See
“Study Methodology.”)

The active style of supervision
emerged as having the most
influence over patrol officers’
behaviors. Officers with active
supervisors were more likely
than those with other types

Exhibit 1. Characteristics of 81 supervisors

Characteristics Minimum Maximum Mean

Supervisor age (years) 31 70 4

Years of experience as a supervisor 1 33

Percentage of supervisors who were female 1

Percentage of supervisors who were nonwhite 15

Percentage of supervisors who held a
4-year college degree 51

Amount of training* in community policing 1 5 4

Amount of knowledge† about community policing 1 3 2

Amount of training in supervision, management,
leadership 1 5 4

Amount of knowledge about supervision,
management, leadership 1 3 1

Note: 17 lieutenants and 64 sergeants.
*Amount of training: 1 = none, 2 = less than 1 day, 3 = 1–2 days, 4 = 3–5 days,
5 = more than 5 days.
†Amount of knowledge: 1 = very knowledgeable, 2 = fairly knowledgeable,
3 = not very knowledgeable.

3
P O L I C E S U P E R V I S O R Y S T Y L E S

Exhibit 2. Distribution of supervisory styles, in percent

Traditional Innovative Supportive Active

Gender
Male (n = 69) 22 30 25 23
Female (n = 12) 50 8 17 25

Race
White (n = 69) 26 26 25 23
Nonwhite (n = 12) 25 33 17 25

Location
Indianapolis lieutenants (n = 17) 12 35 24 2

Indianapolis sergeants (n = 39) 18 28 26 2

St. Petersburg sergeants (n = 25) 48 20 20

Total (N = 81) 26 27 23 23

Note: Each percentage is the proportion of field supervisors associated with the style noted in
the far left column. Thus, traditional supervisors constituted 26 percent of all 81 supervisors,
22 percent of 69 male supervisors, etc.

of supervisors to use force
and spent more time on self-
initiated activities, community
policing activities, and prob-
lem solving.

Traditional supervisors.

Traditional supervisors expect
aggressive enforcement from
subordinates rather than
engagement in community-
oriented activities or policing
of minor disorders. They are
more likely than other types of
supervisors to make decisions
because they tend to take
over encounters with citizens
or tell officers how to handle
those incidents.

Traditional sergeants and lieu-
tenants are highly task oriented
and expect subordinates to

produce measurable out-
comes—particularly arrests
and citations—along with
paperwork and documentation.

Less inclined toward devel-
oping relationships, tradition-
al supervisors give more
instruction to subordinates
and are less likely to reward
and more likely to punish
patrol officers. The traditional
supervisor’s ultimate concern
is to control subordinate
behavior.

Traditional supervisors are
more likely to support new
policing initiatives if they are
consistent with aggressive
law enforcement. More than
60 percent of these supervi-
sors “agree strongly” that

4
R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

THE PROJECT ON POLICING NEIGHBORHOODS

NIJ is committed to providing relevant research that
helps practitioners in the field. This Research for Practice
is one in a series of reports from the Project on Policing
Neighborhoods (POPN) conducted in 1996–1997. POPN
researchers examined police and citizen interaction, atti-
tudes, and behaviors in 12 neighborhoods in Indianapolis,
Indiana, and 12 similar neighborhoods in St. Petersburg,
Florida. They directly observed patrol officers on duty,
interviewed patrol officers and their supervisors, and
conducted telephone surveys of individuals randomly
selected in each neighborhood.

NIJ is publishing several reports that summarize scholarly
reports and articles written by POPN researchers. The
summaries present key information that police managers
need to know about problem solving and community polic-
ing. Additional topics will include encounters with juvenile
suspects, gender differences in officer attitudes and
behavior, police attitudes toward the public and the pub-
lic’s attitudes toward police, how officers spend their time
with the community, and race and everyday policing.

Knowledge about how officers interact with neighborhood
residents and other officers can help law enforcement
administrators improve policies and practices and lead
to better community relations. With this goal in mind,
NIJ invites comments and suggestions concerning this
research. To comment, write to Steve Edwards, National
Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, N.W., Washington,
DC 20531; e-mail edwardss@ojp.usdoj.gov; or call
202–307–0500.

policing, traditional supervi-
sors strictly enforce rules and
regulations and adhere to the
chain of command.

Innovative supervisors.

Innovative supervisors are
characterized by a tendency
to form relationships (i.e.,
they consider more officers
to be friends), a low level of
task orientation, and more
positive views of subordi-
nates. These supervisors
are considered innovative
because they generally
encourage their officers to
embrace new philosophies
and methods of policing.

Innovative supervisors are
defined by their expectations
for community policing and
problem-solving efforts by
subordinates. For example,
96 percent of these super-
visors reported that they
“agree strongly” that “a
good patrol officer will try to
find out what residents think
the neighborhood problems
are,” compared to 48 percent
of traditional supervisors, 68
percent of supportive super-
visors, and 68 percent of
active supervisors.

One goal of innovative super-
visors is to help subordinates
implement community polic-
ing and problem-solving
strategies by coaching, men-
toring, and facilitating. They

“enforcing the law is by far a
patrol officer’s most impor-
tant responsibility,” com-
pared with 14 percent of
innovative supervisors,

percent of supportive supervi-
sors, and 11 percent of active
supervisors. Along with their
no-nonsense approach to

5
P O L I C E S U P E R V I S O R Y S T Y L E S

are less concerned with
enforcing rules and regula-
tions, report writing, or other
task-oriented activities than
traditional supervisors.

Unlike traditional supervisors,
innovative supervisors gener-
ally do not tell subordinates
how to handle situations and
do not take over the situa-
tions themselves. They are
more likely to delegate deci-
sionmaking. They spend sig-
nificantly more time per shift
dealing with the public or
other officers than other
supervisors do (15 percent
compared with 9 percent).

Supportive supervisors.

These supervisors support
subordinates by protecting
them from discipline or
punishment perceived as
“unfair” and by providing
inspirational motivation. They
often serve as a buffer be-
tween officers and manage-
ment to protect officers from
criticism and discipline. They
believe this gives their offi-
cers space to perform duties
without constant worry of
disciplinary action for honest
mistakes.

In some cases, supportive
supervisors do not have
strong ties to or positive re-
lations with management.
They may attempt to shield
patrol officers from the police
administration. Thus, some

supervisors classified as
supportive may function
more as “protectors” than
“supporters.”

Of supportive supervisors,
68 percent reported that
“protecting their officers
from unfair criticism and
punishment” is one of their
most important functions,
compared with 10 percent
of traditional supervisors,
5 percent of innovative
supervisors, and no active
supervisors.

The protective role adopted
by some supportive super-
visors can be a problem,
however. Other research
has found that shielding offi-
cers from accountability
mechanisms within the de-
partment can lead to police
misconduct.2

Supportive supervisors are
less concerned with enforc-
ing rules and regulations,
dealing with paperwork, or
ensuring that officers do their
work. They may encourage
officers through praise and
recognition, act as coun-
selors, or display concern for
subordinates’ personal and
professional well-being. The
study found that supportive
supervisors praise or reward
subordinate officers signifi-
cantly more often during an
average shift (3 times per

R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

shift) than do other supervi-
sors (2 times per shift).

Active supervisors. Active
supervisors embrace a phi-
losophy of leading by exam-
ple. Their goal is to be heavily
involved in the field alongside
subordinates while control-
ling patrol officer behavior,
thus performing the dual
function of street officer and
supervisor.

Almost all active supervisors
(95 percent) report that they
often go on their own initia-
tive to incidents that their
officers are handling, com-
pared to 24 percent of tradi-
tional supervisors, 55 percent
of innovative supervisors,
and 68 percent of supportive
supervisors.

Active supervisors also give
importance to engaging in
patrol work themselves. They
spend significantly more time
per shift than other supervi-
sors on general motor patrol
(33 percent compared with
26 percent) and traffic en-
counters (4 percent com-
pared with 2 percent). These
supervisors attempt to strike
a balance between being
active in the field and control-
ling subordinate behavior
through constant, direct
supervision. Supervisors
with an active style are

characterized by directive
decisionmaking, a strong
sense of supervisory power,
and a relatively positive view
of subordinates.

Although active supervisors
believe they have consider-
able influence over subordi-
nates’ decisions, they are
less likely to encourage team
building, coaching, or mentor-
ing. One possible explanation
for this is that they are reluc-
tant to become so involved
that they alienate subordinate
officers. A fine line separates
an active supervisor from
being seen as overcontrolling
or micromanaging.

Impact of supervisory
style on patrol officers
What impact does superviso-
ry style have on patrol officer
activities? The study exam-
ined the influence of 64 ser-
geants’ supervisory styles on
the behavior of 239 patrol
officers, having identified the
sergeant-supervisor of each
officer. The study’s findings
focus on how likely officers
were to make arrests, issue
citations, and use force as
well as how much time per
shift they allocated to com-
munity policing activities,
administrative duties, and
personal business.

Officers with
active super-
visors spent

more time on
self-initiated

activities,
community-

policing
activities, and

problem solving.

P O L I C E S U P E R V I S O R Y S T Y L E S

Arrests and citations.

Supervisory style did not
affect the likelihood that
patrol officers would make
arrests or issue citations in
either traffic or nontraffic
situations. In nontraffic
encounters, however, the
mere presence of a field
supervisor, regardless of
style, significantly influenced
officer behavior; the longer a
supervisor was present, the
more likely patrol officers
were to make an arrest.

Use of force. Patrol officers
with active supervisors were
twice as likely to use force3

against suspects as officers
whose supervisors employ
other styles. In addition,
active supervisors them-
selves used force against
suspects more often than
other types of supervisors.
The mere presence of a
supervisor at the scene,
however, did not have a sig-
nificant influence on police
use of force.

Self-initiated activities.

Patrol officers with active
supervisors spent more time
per shift engaging in proac-
tive (self-initiated) activities
than officers with other
supervisors. The former
spent 15 percent of their
time per shift being proac-
tive, in contrast to 14

COMMUNITY POLICING IN FIELD TRAINING AND
SUPERVISION

Although not part of POPN research, a study conducted by
Robin N. Haarr, Ph.D., under NIJ grant 96–IJ–CX– 0060, also
looked at influences on patrol officer behavior, particularly
new recruits. This research also found that field supervisors
have crucial influence, although in a different context .a

A separate study of how police recruits are taught com-
munity policing principles provides some guidance for
police managers on how field training and actual policing
experience may supersede academy training in influenc-
ing the attitudes and beliefs of new officers.

The 3-year study surveyed police recruits at four intervalsb

during their training and first year on the job. It focused on
academy “reform training”c designed to change recruits’
attitudes positively toward community-oriented policing
and problem-solving policing.

The research found that academy reform training often
proved ineffective because it was not followed up during
field training, and factors contradicting academy trainingd

dominated recruits’ actual policing experiences.

The study also found that recruits’ beliefs about the nature
of policing were firmly established before training even
begins:

The best predictors of attitude change were by far the
attitudes that recruits brought with them to the acade-
my. In other words, police recruits are not empty vessels
to be filled with new attitudes and values related to
policing.e

Nonetheless, academy reform training did influence
recruits’ beliefs about police work before field training. But
the study found “little evidence of a formal and/or system-
atic approach to incorporating community policing and/or
problem-solving training into the field training process.”f

Thus, community policing principles—already on shaky

continued on page 8

8
R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

ground because of recruits’ previously held beliefs—often
appeared to be academic:

It seems unreasonable to expect police recruits to
continue their commitment to community policing and
problem-solving policing principles and practices if they
leave the training academy and return to a police
agency that does not require its officers to engage in
community policing or problem-solving activities.g

It falls to police leadership, the study concluded, to set the
tone for community policing. When supervisors and the
organization practice community-oriented and problem-
solving policing, recruits will too. The study recommends
that academy-taught principles be coupled more closely
with field training and actual police practices.

NOTES

a. Haarr, R.N., The Impact of Community Policing Training and Program
Implementation on Police Personnel, final report for the National Institute of
Justice, grant number 96–IJ–CX–0060, Washington, DC; National Institute of
Justice, 2000, NCJ 190680.

b. Surveys were administered on the first day at the academy, near the last
day at the academy, 12 weeks later (near the end of field training), and at the
end of 1 year on the job.

c. “Reform training” is defined as “training designed to alter an officer’s per-
ception of the world and/or police work. … In the case of community policing
training, the goal is to replace outdated attitudes and beliefs about policing
with new attitudes and beliefs that are consistent with community policing
and problem-solving policing philosophies and strategies.” (Haarr, The
Impact of Community Policing Training and Program Implementation on
Police Personnel, pp. 3–4.)

d. Such as shift, coworkers’ attitudes, and precinct location.

e. Haarr, p. v.

f. Ibid., p. 176.

g. Ibid., p. 175.

continued from page 7
percent, 13 percent, and 11
percent for officers under
supportive, traditional, and
innovative supervisors,
respectively. Proactivity
excludes time spent on
dispatched or supervisor-
directed activities, general
patrol, traveling to a location,
personal business, and
administrative activities.

Community policing and

problem solving. Officers
with active supervisors spent
more time per shift engaging
in problem solving and other
community-policing activities
than officers with other types
of supervisors. Officers under
active supervision spent
11.3 percent of their time
per shift on problem solving,
compared with 10.7 percent
for officers with supportive
supervisors, 9.4 percent for
those with traditional super-
visors, and 8.0 percent for
officers with innovative super-
visors. Although differences
between these percentages
seem small, they can produce
substantial differences in the
amount of time spent on
community policing by an
entire patrol force over the
course of a year.

At first glance it appears con-
tradictory that officers with
innovative supervisors spent
the least amount of time on
community policing and

9
P O L I C E S U P E R V I S O R Y S T Y L E S

problem solving. This finding
suggests that simply having
an innovative supervisory
style does not necessarily
translate into more innovative
activities from subordinates.

Possibly, innovative super-
visors may be more inclined
to encourage community-
building tactics, while active
supervisors may encourage
more aggressive enforce-
ment, which may lead active
supervisors and their subordi-
nates to be more engaged
with problem solving and
other citizen interactions.

Administrative activities.

Patrol officers with active su-
pervisors spend significantly
less time per shift on admin-
istrative tasks. Officers under
active supervision spent

percent of their time dealing
with administrative matters,
compared with 19 percent
for patrol officers with tradi-
tional supervisors and 17 per-
cent for those with innovative
or supportive supervisors.

Personal business. Supervi-
sory style has little effect on
the time patrol officers spend
conducting personal business
(nonwork-related encounters
and activities, including meal
and restroom breaks). Overall,
officers spent 16 percent
of their time on personal
business.

Implications for policy
and practice
Collectively, the research find-
ings indicate that supervisory
styles affect some types of
subordinate behavior. Police
administrators are encour-
aged to consider supervisory
style in setting department
goals and training.

Compared with other styles,
an active supervisory ap-
proach appears to wield the
most influence over patrol
officer actions. The findings
suggest that to best influ-
ence their patrol officers’
behavior, field supervisors
must lead by example—the
hallmark of an active style.

One clear implication of the
research is that police admin-
istrators and managers would
be well-advised to direct and
train field supervisors to
become more involved and
set an example of the behav-
ior they expect from subordi-
nates. (For discussion of a
different study that examined
supervisory practices and offi-
cer training, see “Community
Policing in Field Training and
Supervision.”)

An active supervisory style,
however, has potential prob-
lems. Leading by example
can be positive or negative,
depending on the example

10
R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

set. As noted previously, for
instance, active supervisors
and their subordinates are
more likely to use force
against suspects.

One reason why active
supervisors might promote
greater use of force and
proactivity (which could
expose the officer to greater
risk if things go wrong) is that
by taking precisely the risks
that he/she wants the officer
to take, the active supervisor
demonstrates that “if it’s
safe for Sarge, then it’s safe
for me, too.”

Supervisory styles influenced
only those officer behaviors
that are hardest to monitor
and measure, such as use of
force, problem solving, and
proactivity. Conversely, super-
visory styles did not signifi-
cantly affect officer behaviors
that are relatively easy to
monitor and measure, such
as making arrests and issuing
citations. One reason may be
that supervisors have more
influence in situations where
patrol officers have the most
discretion. Perhaps the less
certain the task and the less
visible its performance, the
more opportunity a sergeant
may have to define the duties
of subordinates, who may
appreciate such clarification
of their roles.

Another possible explanation
is that such easily measured
officer activities as arrests
and citations may be most
influenced by policy guide-
lines from higher ranking offi-
cials. This effect is likely to
be relatively uniform regard-
less of field supervisors’
styles. Thus, the place to
look for supervisory influence
over these activities may be
at the district or departmental
level, not the field supervi-
sory level.

Leading by example is an
effective frontline supervi-
sory tool only if the example
supports departmental goals.
For instance, many officers
at both sites had received rel-
atively little training in com-
munity policing and were
skeptical about its worth.
Sergeants who practiced
an active supervisory style
supplemented training defi-
ciencies while building the
self-confidence of subordi-
nate officers.

These findings strongly sug-
gest that police administrators
are more likely to achieve
departmental goals if they
align them with supervisory
practice and encourage field
supervisors to “get in the
game.”

By taking
precisely the

risks that
he/she wants
the officer to

take, the active
supervisor

demonstrates
that “if it’s safe
for Sarge, then

it’s safe for
me, too.”

11
P O L I C E S U P E R V I S O R Y S T Y L E S

STUDY METHODOLOGY

This study used data collected for the POPN multimethod study of police patrol in the Indianapolis,
Indiana, and St. Petersburg, Florida, police departments, which were implementing community
policing at the time of the study.

The core methodology was systematic social observation of patrol officers in the field. Trained
observers accompanied officers on their work shifts and took field notes. Officers assigned to each
of the 24 study beats were observed for approximately 240 hours. Researchers observed more than
5,700 hours of patrol work during the summer of 1996 in Indianapolis and the summer of 1997 in St.
Petersburg. From their field notes, observers prepared narratives and coded data items about
officer activities.

Researchers also interviewed patrol officers and frontline supervisors about their personal charac-
teristics, training and education, work experience, perceptions of their beats, attitudes toward the
police role, and perceptions of their department’s implementation of community policing and prob-
lem solving. Participation was voluntary and confidential. To encourage candid responses to
potentially sensitive questions about the quality of supervision, officers were not asked for their
supervisors’ names. Officers were matched with sergeants through other information.

Review of prior research identified 10 attitudinal dimensions that potentially shape supervisors’
styles:

■ How they make decisions.

■ How they distribute power.

■ The extent to which they attempt or avoid exerting leadership.

■ The priority they place on aggressive enforcement.

■ The priority they attach to community policing and problem solving.

■ How they view subordinates.

■ Whether they engage in inspirational motivation.

■ How task oriented they are.

■ Whether they focus on building friendships and mutual trust with subordinates.

■ Whether they focus on protecting subordinates from unfair criticism and punishment.

Factor analysis of these dimensions revealed the four individual supervisory styles: traditional,
innovative, supportive, and active.

12
R E S E A R C H F O R P R A C T I C E / J U N E 0 3

Notes
1. “Quantity” is used here in the
sense of amount of supervision, i.e.,
the number of supervisors, the
amount of interaction between
supervisors and subordinates, and
time spent on supervised encoun-
ters between patrol officers and citi-
zens. This study is unique in its
focus on the quality and style—as
well as quantity—of patrol officer
supervision.

2. For example, see Christopher
Commission, Report of the Indepen-
dent Commission on the Los Ange-
les Police Department, Los Angeles
Independent Commission on the Los
Angeles Police Department, 1991;
Mollen Commission to Investigate
Allegations of Police Corruption,
Commission Report, New York: The
Mollen Commission, 1994; Skolnik,
J.H., and J.J. Fyfe, Above the Law:
Police and the Excessive Use of
Force, New York: Free Press, 1993;
and Kappeler, V.E., R.D. Sluder, and
G.P. Alpert, Forces of Deviance:
Understanding the Dark Side of
Policing, 2d edition, Prospective
Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1998.

3. Use of force includes firm grip or
nonpain restraint, pain compliance
(hammerlock, wristlock, finger grip,
carotid control, bar arm lock), impact
or incapacitation (striking with body
or weapon, mace, taser), or drawing
or discharging a firearm.

Recommended reading
This report was based on the
following articles:

Engel, R., “Patrol Officer
Supervision in the Communi-
ty Policing Era,” Journal of

Criminal Justice 30(1) (Janu-
ary/February 2002): 51–64.

Engel, R., “Supervisory
Styles of Patrol Sergeants
and Lieutenants,” Journal
of Criminal Justice 29(4)
(July/August 2001): 341–355.

Engel, R., “The Effects of
Supervisory Styles on Patrol
Officer Behavior,” Police
Quarterly 3(3) (September
2000): 262–293.