CJUS 610 Liberty Level 5 Leadership

User Generated

wbrenzfrl

Business Finance

CJUS 610

Liberty University

Description

You will complete the assigned readings and post a 400-word thread answering the Discussion Board question assigned from the readings. Threads require a minimum of 3 properly formatted citations. The thread must be submitted in the Discussion Board Forum’s textbox as well as a properly formatted, current APA Word document.


In his 2001 article, “Good to Great”, Jim Collins found 11 companies that went from good to great and metaphorically discussed how each of them did this. Of particular note was how Collins described the transformation of Wells Fargo.


Using the Hedgehog Concept, Collins argued that leaders are hedgehogs, not foxes. Foxes are good at many things. Hedgehogs are good at 1 big thing and are able to distill everything down to 1 simple workable idea. Accordingly, to be a great company, the CEO would have to ask: 1) what is the company best at; 2) what economic denominator drives the company; and, 3) what are the employees passionate about? Using this formula, Collins notably claims that Wells Fargo discovered that their economic driver was not profit per loan but profit per employee. Consequently, they pioneered electronic banking with the idea that they would “run a business like they owned it” and ended up turning that employee profit into superior results.

Although Collins does not empirically define these results, Wells Fargo’s profit summaries since 2001 reflect as much. In 2016, a former employee revealed that Wells Fargo had been involved in elaborate schemes to defraud customers by using their information to create phony accounts without their knowledge. Still trying to recover from the $1.2 billion housing settlement in February of 2016, this disclosure resulted in yet another $185 million in fines by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Consequently, the CEO resigned and the Department of Justice (DOJ) is now investigating the company. Wells Fargo shares have lost nearly 16% of their value.

For your discussion, you must first determine if Collins was incorrect to begin with. Did Collins simply misinterpret how Wells Fargo reported their successes after 2001? Or was it something internal at Wells Fargo that caused the Hedgehog Concept to go awry? If so, how could profit per employee go so wrong? Most importantly, where was the failure in leadership and why?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

2 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services “Good to Great”Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector by: Chuck Wexler Mary Ann Wycoff Craig Fischer COPS COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE This project, conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), was supported by Cooperative Agreement # 2004-HS-WX-0003 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of views or opinions contained in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the members of PERF. The opinions expressed are generally those based on the consensus of executive session attendees; however, not every view or statement presented in this report can necessarily be attributed to each participant. Web sites and sources listed provided useful information at the time of this writing, but the authors do not endorse any information of the sponsor organization or other information on the web sites. Published by the Police Executive Research Forum U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Police Executive Research Forum Washington, D.C. 20036 June 2007 ISBN: 978-1-934485-02-6 Table of Contents iii Table of Contents Table of Contents Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 PERF’s Interest in Good to Great . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Results of the “Good to Great” Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (1) Self-Effacing but Fanatically Driven Level 5 Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 (2) “First Who, Then What,” and Getting the Right People on the Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (3) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 (4) The Hedgehog Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (5) A Culture of Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 (6) Technology Accelerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 (7) The Flywheel and the Doom Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 When Success Is Not a Matter of Profits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Application of the Concepts in the Public Sector: A Case Study from the Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing . . . . . . 17 (1) Level 5 Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 (2) Getting the Right People on the Bus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 (3) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith) . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 (4) The Hedgehog Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 (5) A Culture of Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 (6) Technology Accelerators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 (7) The Flywheel and the Doom Loop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Achieving a “Culture of Greatness” in Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix 1. Attendee List for March 29, 2005 Good to Great Leadership Summit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Foreword v Foreword Foreword I n his best-selling book Good to Great, Jim Collins gives business executives advice about how to push their companies from the “merely good” to the rarefied world of greatness. This PERF report explores how the principles of Good to Great might be applied to policing. It is important to understand that Collins is extremely careful in how he uses the word “great.” His criteria for greatness in business, based on stock market performance, are so stringent that he could find only 11 companies that qualified as great. To make a rough translation of Collins’ principles into the policing environment: A police chief striving for greatness might set a goal of reducing violent crime in his jurisdiction by, say, 50 percent. It would not matter to the chief if crime were going up everywhere else in the country, because great executives do not look for excuses; they look to get things done. And to be truly great, the chief not only would need to meet his target; he would need to ensure that the reduction in crime would be sustained even if he retired. In Collins’ view, great executives focus their ambition not on personal glory, but on making the organization great, and that includes “setting up their successors for success.” So Collins has set high standards for greatness. And if greatness in policing can be achieved, it certainly would be a powerful force for good in the world. Good to Great first came to my attention in 2002. I was shuttling back and forth from Washington, D.C., to work with the Chicago Police Department (CPD), and everyone in Chicago seemed to be talking about “getting the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats.” I asked what that meant, and the CPD’s Good to Great fans referred me to the book. They explained that one of Collins’ key findings was that in the companies with the most impressive records of success, executives began their quest for greatness not by setting goals, but by hiring the right people, dismissing those who would thwart change, and finding the best positions for everyone who remained. Once the right people were on the bus, then the leader and his team began deciding where to direct the bus in order to find greatness. I read Good to Great, was intrigued, and wondered whether the analysis of how to make a business successful could be applied to policing. I tracked Collins down, and he was amazingly approachable for a man who had a book on the nonfiction bestseller lists for months. He invited me out to Boulder and before I knew it, I was on a plane to Colorado. A short time later, I found myself in a Boulder deli with Collins and Milliken, Colorado Chief of Police Jim Burack. What an amazing day we had! Collins was intrigued with how his principles might apply to policing and other parts of government, as well as to nonprofit groups, social service agencies, even churches. While his research was in the field of business, he already was beginning to speculate that the ability to overcome obstacles seemed to be the key to greatness for police executives and other government leaders. (Collins has noted that in some ways, police executives face more obstacles than do business leaders. For example, throwing anyone “off the bus” can be far more difficult for police executives than for many business leaders.) Our meeting with Collins could not have been more insightful, and I invited him to speak at PERF’s annual meeting in 2004 in San Antonio via webcast. There was a lot of give-and-take in San Antonio between Collins and our members, and I recall “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector vi feeling that the session was intriguing from both perspectives: Jim was very taken with how police chiefs and sheriffs manage competing goals in a very uncertain environment, and the chiefs were taken with Jim’s description of how companies achieve greatness. Carl Peed, Director of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), was at the meeting and expressed considerable interest in learning how these principles might apply to policing. That was the beginning of this project, and in March 2005 we convened an executive session in Washington, D.C., supported by the COPS Office. More than 30 police chiefs, school superintendents, and business leaders attended, and many expressed the view that we should explore this area further. In comparison to Good to Great, this report only scratches the surface of its topic. Jim Collins had a team of 20 people who spent 15,000 hours helping him research his book. This report cannot come close to that level of scholarship. What we have done is gather anecdotal examples of how Collins’ principles might be applied to policing. Interested readers looking for more on this subject are advised that Collins recently published a 35-page supplement entitled Good to Great and the Social Sectors, in which he offers his latest thinking about how government executives and other nonbusiness leaders may apply his findings to their work. While this report mentions some police leaders by name and does not mention others, no one can judge who among us (if anyone) has achieved what Collins calls the “Level 5” leadership that results in greatness. In fact, calibrating success in policing is more subjective than in business, Collins has noted, because policing does not have standard “business metrics,” such as using financial returns as a measure of performance. Nevertheless, Collins says, “all indicators are flawed, whether qualitative or quantitative,” so he encourages police leaders to forge ahead, setting their own audacious goals and finding an intelligent, consistent method of measuring results against those goals. And he offers guidance to anyone who wants to work toward Level 5: Start with good work habits, knowledge, competence, talent, and strong vision, and then do one simple thing—“Build enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will.” One final thought: I am not someone who reads a lot of management books. And those that I have read, while interesting, tend not to be particularly memorable. But Good to Great has had an incredible resilience for me and for many police executives I have talked to. It has become the book from which a number of us have grasped some very fundamental principles—picking good people, facing brutal facts, developing a culture of discipline, and relentless follow-through. The original book had not one word about policing in it, yet as I read it, it was all about policing, especially the notion of overcoming obstacles that Collins told me about on that fantastic day we met in Boulder. I hope that as you read this monograph you will see how police leaders and others in the public sector are demonstrating these principles to push ourselves toward greatness. Chuck Wexler Police Executive Research Forum Washington, D.C. Acknowledgements vii Acknowledgments Acknowledgments F irst and foremost we want to thank Jim Collins for the inspiration behind this project. The publication of Good to Great and the subsequent release of the monograph Good to Great and the Social Sectors have been the catalyst for this entire effort. In addition to this work, Jim has given of his own time in helping us understand the important differences between the private sector and our own world of policing. We want to thank the many people who have contributed to this project. This report grew from the information that was shared by an exceptional group of leaders during an executive session. This group of very busy individuals, from the policing community, the armed forces, the education community, and the private sector, graciously agreed to spend one day discussing how the principles of Jim Collins’ Good to Great could be applied to the public sector. For their participation and thoughtful insight we thank: Chief William Bratton (Los Angeles Police Department), Chief Jim Burack (Milliken, Colorado, Police Department), retired Chief Bennie Click (Dallas Police Department), Reverend David Couper (St. Peter’s Episcopal Church, retired chief from Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department), Superintendent Edward Davis III (Lowell, Massachusetts Police Department), Chief Donald De Lucca (Miami Beach Police Department), Chief Charlie Deane (Prince William County, Virginia, Police Department), Director Paul Evans (U.K. Home Office, Police Standards Unit), Chief Terrance Gainer (U.S. Capitol Police), Chief Ellen Hanson (Lenexa, Kansas, Police Department), Executive Director Ron Huberman (Chicago Office of Emergency Management and Communication), Chief Gil Kerlikowske (Seattle Police Department), City Manager Lorne Kramer (City of Colorado Springs), Chief David Kunkle (Dallas Police Department), Chief Bill Lansdowne (San Diego Police Department), Dr. John Leathers (Pennsylvania State University), Principal Jody Leleck (Broad Acres Elementary School, Montgomery County, Maryland), Chief James Lewis (Pomona, California, Police Department), Robert Lunney (Police and Public Safety Consultant), Chief Thomas Manger (Montgomery County Police Department), Barbara McDonald ( former Deputy Superintendent, Chicago Police Department), Chief Robert McNeilly (Pittsburgh Bureau of Police), Rick Neal (Vice President, Motorola), Michael Nila (Franklin Covey), Director Carl Peed (U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services), Chief Charles Ramsey (Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department), Bruce Romer (Office of the County Executive, Montgomery County, Maryland), Jim Sarallo (Senior Vice President, Motorola), Karen Rowan (former General Counsel, Chicago Police Department), Superintendent Jerry Weast (Montgomery County, Maryland, Public Schools), Commandant Raymond Geoffroy (U.S. Marine Corps), President Bonnie Cullison (Montgomery County, Maryland, Education Association), and Chief Kim Dine (Frederick, Maryland, Police Department).1 1 The titles and agencies of the participants are those that were current at the time of the meeting, March 29, 2005. Several have since changed. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector viii Of course, this publication would not have been possible without the generous support of the COPS Office. Director Carl Peed personally took an interest in this project and we are grateful for his leadership. The COPS staff has demonstrated a real commitment to the issue of leadership in policing. We appreciate the vigorous efforts, steadfast guidance, and profound patience of our project monitor, Amy Schapiro. A team of PERF staffers and expert consultants deserves special recognition for their hard work. We thank Heather Davies for initially getting this project off the ground. Rebecca Neuburger deserves considerable credit for shepherding this project through all the crucial moments. Her own considerable experience has been invaluable to this project. We also thank Bruce Taylor for his substantive and critical guidance and Jerry Murphy for his skill with words. Thanks to Jim Burack for his thoughtful review and Barbara McDonald for offering her wealth of experience and considerable insight to make this a more useful document. Introduction 1 Introduction Introduction W hat makes an organization great? What sustains greatness? Why do some organizations never attain that status? These questions motivated Jim Collins, the author of Good to Great (Harper Business, 2001) to undertake the search for answers. We’ve all heard Voltaire’s adage that “the perfect is the enemy of the good,” but Collins turns that on its head. Instead, he contends that “good is the enemy of great,” and that few individuals or organizations ever achieve greatness because they settle for being only good. Collins’ analysis is not based on his own guesses or opinions, but on an enormous amount of research. Collins and a team of 20 assistants searched for companies that made a “leap to greatness,” defined by stock market performance. Specifically, they looked for Fortune 500 companies that experienced 15 years of performance at or below the general stock market, followed by a transition point, and then by cumulative returns at least three times the market during the next 15 years—a very rigorous standard. They sifted out companies that performed well only because they were in a winning industry; they wanted companies that showed great performance independent of their industry. And they studied the companies’ long-term performance because “you can’t just be lucky for 15 years.” (p. 6) 2 The Collins team found 11 companies that met its criteria: Abbott, Circuit City, Fannie Mae, Gillette, Kimberly-Clark, Kroger, Nucor, Philip Morris, Pitney Bowes, Walgreens, and Wells Fargo. To sharpen the analysis, each “great” company was paired with a company in the same industry that had had similar opportunities and resources, but had made no leap to greatness. And the team found another six companies that showed signs of greatness in the short term, but failed to maintain the trajectory. Collins and his assistants then conducted an in-depth analysis of each of the 28 companies. They interviewed executives who held key positions during each great company’s transition era. They studied everything they could imagine about the companies, from layoffs and management turnover statistics to business strategy and corporate culture. They read all the newspaper and magazine articles they could find about the companies. The point of the analysis was to see if the team could identify unusual traits that separated the great companies and their executives from the lesser companies. Collins and his aides were able to identify such traits, and Good to Great was the result. The book details the often-surprising qualities and patterns that distinguished the great companies from those that were not great. In 2005, four years after Good to Great was published, Collins acknowledged the growing interest in his book by nonbusiness entities, including law enforcement organizations, by publishing a monograph titled Good to Great 2 Unless otherwise stated, citations refer to Good to Great. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 2 and the Social Sectors. In this 35-page document, Collins offers his analysis of how the lessons of Good to Great should be modified to fit government agencies, charities, and other organizations. TRUE CONFESSION: I AM A GOOD TO GREAT JUNKIE W hen Chuck Wexler agreed to my suggestion that he read Good to Great, I knew it would become a window of opportunity for law enforcement. There is one thing I know about Chuck Wexler: When he recognizes a good thing, he runs with it. Shortly after reading the book, he called to tell me that he had given his staff copies of the book. That was good news, but not the great news I had expected. A short time later, he called to tell me that he was meeting with Jim Collins, and that was great news! Chuck was able to convince Jim to speak at the PERF conference, and then he organized a meeting of national law enforcement leaders to talk about the principles of Good to Great. Why am I so taken with the principles of the book? Because they work. And they work not just in the business world; they work in law enforcement and in the public school system, as so ably demonstrated by the success of Ms. Jodi Leleck, principal of Broad Acres Elementary School in the Montgomery County, Maryland, school district. The beauty of Good to Great is its simplicity, practicality, and directness. Those three qualities are almost always present in our police officers, who are the backbone of our departments. There is no reason those qualities should fade as the police rank gets higher. Embracing the principles of Good to Great changes the way people at all levels of the organization view their assignments and their responsibilities to their profession. You don’t need to be a Level 5 leader to want to be a part of Good to Great. While the book acknowledges that not everything can be controlled, police chiefs can control enough things to catapult a mediocre department into “greatness.” Over and over, we have seen some of our strongest chiefs direct their entire departments to a focused mission with great results (for example, Chief Rick Easley in Kansas City focused his department on race relations; and Chicago Superintendent Terry Hillard worked to educate the community and police officers about different religions, cultures, and customs after 9/11). When a police department is the best it can be, all that is important to that department will follow. Not only do I believe that Good to Great works for both the private and public sectors, I believe it works in our everyday lives. The principles of Good to Great can help build better families, better friendships, and better neighbors. When something this great comes along, you need to share it all along the way with everyone who will listen. Karen Rowan Retired General Counsel Chicago Police Department PERF’s Interest in Good to Great 3 PERF’s Interest in Good to Great PERF’s Interest in Good to Great W hile working as general counsel for the Chicago Police Department, Karen Rowan read Collins’ book and urged the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to introduce it to the Forum’s membership. The result was a presentation by Jim Collins to PERF’s members at their 2004 annual meeting in which he explored with the audience the applicability for policing of the “Good to Great” (GTG) concepts. Both Collins and PERF members were enthusiastic about the potential relevance of the “greatness” concepts, and the consensus of the group discussion was that “there is a fit, albeit an imperfect one.” There were, however, challenges associated with applying each of the principles in the context of policing, and the chiefs encouraged PERF to explore these challenges in greater depth. In March 2005 PERF convened a conference, funded by the Justice Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and attended by 33 representatives of the police profession, the Montgomery County Maryland Public Schools, and other public- and private-sector organizations. Attendees spent a day discussing the efficacy of using the GTG concepts for improving public organizations. (Appendix 1 lists the attendees.) This report summarizes the key principles identified by Collins, evaluates their relevance for policing as perceived by officials at the PERF conference, and offers experiences and insights on issues identified by Collins and his team. Results of the “Good to Great” Research 5 Results of the “Good to Great” Research Results of the “Good to Great” Research C ollins’ team spent 10.5 people-years researching the 11 great companies, the 11 comparison companies that did not achieve greatness, and the six companies that temporarily showed signs of greatness but faltered. The team then spent weeks discussing and debating the data in an effort to distill core characteristics of the great companies. The result was the seven qualities, concepts, practices, or principles summarized here: (1) Self-Effacing but Fanatically Driven Level 5 Leaders Collins coined the term “Level 5 leader” to describe the highest level of executive capabilities identified in his research. (Levels 1 through 4 are: Highly Capable Individual, Contributing Team Member, Competent Manager, and Effective Leader.) The Level 5 executives who led the 11 companies to greatness were ambitious, but their ambition was directed first and foremost toward the company and its success, not to personal renown. Collins stresses that Level 5 leaders are “fanatically driven, infected with an incurable need to produce results.” (p. 30) When things go well, they give credit to other people, or in many cases, to simple good luck. When things go badly, they “look in the mirror” and never blame bad luck. (p. 35) The Collins team also found that Level 5 leaders did not exhibit enormous egos; in fact, larger-than-life personalities were found in more than two-thirds of the comparison companies that did not achieve greatness. “We were surprised, shocked really, to discover the type of leadership required for turning a good company into a great one,” Collins wrote. “Compared to high-profile leaders with big personalities who make headlines and become celebrities, the good-to-great leaders seem to have come from Mars. Selfeffacing, quiet, reserved, even shy—these leaders are a paradoxical blend of personal humility and professional will. They are more like Lincoln and Socrates than Patton or Caesar.” (pp. 12–13) In Good to Great and the Social Sectors, Collins discusses how Level 5 leadership is different in a law enforcement agency or other nonbusiness organization. First, he notes, “most nonbusiness leaders simply do not have the concentrated decision power of a business CEO.” (Social Sectors, p. 10) Unlike a CEO, a police chief has to answer to the public—and often to a mayor or city council. Police unions and civil service systems further inhibit chiefs’ power. Thus, Level 5 leadership in policing may involve a greater degree of “legislative” types of skills, rather than “executive” skills, Collins hypothesizes. “Legislative leadership relies more upon persuasion, political currency, and shared interests to create the conditions for the right decisions to happen,” he writes (p. 11). “There is an irony in all this,” Collins adds. “Social sector organizations increasingly look to business for leadership models and talent, yet I suspect we will find more true leadership in the social sectors than the “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 6 business sector….True leadership only exists if people follow when they have the freedom not to.” (2) “First Who, Then What,” and Getting the Right People on the Bus When Collins and his team identified the 11 greatest companies of the period 1965 to 1995, they expected to find that the first step in taking a company from good to great would be to set a new direction and vision, and then hire or fire people as necessary to achieve that vision. “We found something quite the opposite,” Collins writes. “The executives who ignited the transformations from good to great did not first figure out where to drive the bus and then get people to take it there. No, they first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figured out where to drive it.” (p. 41) In fact, Collins said, “the main point…is not about assembling the right team—that’s nothing new.” Rather, the main point is that great leaders assemble their teams before they decide where to go. (p. 44) Collins reasoned that if you begin with “who” instead of “what,” you can adapt to changing conditions. “If people join the bus primarily because of where it is going, what happens if you get 10 miles down the road and you need to change direction?” he asks. (p. 42) Furthermore, an executive who hires the right people doesn’t need to waste time looking for ways to manage and motivate them, Collins wrote. “The right people don’t need to be tightly managed or fired up; they will be self-motivated by the inner drive to produce the best results and to be part of creating something great.” (p. 42) In law enforcement agencies and other nonbusiness organizations, moving people on or off the bus can be more difficult, Collins acknowledged in Good to Great and the Social Sectors. “Business executives can more easily fire people and—equally important—they can use money to buy talent,” he wrote. (Social Sectors, p. 15) The social sectors, however, have one compelling advantage, he said: The types of people drawn to policing, teaching, serving the poor, or other social-sector jobs often have strong passion, commitment, and internal motivation. “The right people can often attract money, but money by itself can never attract the right people,” Collins wrote. (Social Sectors, p. 17) (3) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith) “All good-to-great companies began the process of finding a path to greatness by confronting the brutal facts of their current reality,” Collins Results of the “Good to Great” Research 7 wrote. “When you start with an honest and diligent effort to determine the truth of your situation, the right decisions often become self-evident….A primary task in taking a company from good to great is to create a culture wherein people have a tremendous opportunity to be heard and, ultimately, for the truth to be heard.” (p. 88) Newspaper and magazine articles about the great companies were peppered with phrases like “loud debate” and “healthy conflict,” Collins noted. The Collins research produced no evidence that great companies had more information or better information than their unsuccessful competitors; rather, the great companies had “red flag” mechanisms and other tools for calling attention to information that cannot be ignored. (4) The Hedgehog Concept Perhaps the most mysterious lesson of Good to Great is the Hedgehog Concept, based on the Greek parable about the fox, which knows many things, and the hedgehog, which knows one big thing. Collins encourages executives to be like hedgehogs—apparently slow and plodding when compared to the fox, but blessed with “a piercing insight that allows them to see through complexity and discern underlying patterns.” Hedgehogs “see what is essential, and ignore the rest.” (pp. 90–91) What is a “Hedgehog Concept”? For each company, it is an understanding of what the company can do better than anyone else in the world. That does not mean having a mere goal, a plan, or an intention to be the best, Collins stresses. “It is an understanding of what you can be the best at. The distinction is absolutely crucial.” (p. 98) For nonbusiness organizations, finding the Hedgehog Concept involves thinking about what the organization stands for, its mission or core purpose, and what it can contribute uniquely to the people it touches, better than any other organization, Collins adds in Good to Great and the Social Sectors. (p. 19) (5) A Culture of Discipline Collins and his research team noticed that the good-to-great companies had another thing in common: They all had a “culture of discipline” in which employees showed extreme diligence and intensity in their thoughts and actions, always focusing on implementing the company’s Hedgehog Concept. The opposite of a culture of discipline is bureaucracy, Collins explains. “Bureaucratic cultures arise to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline, which arise from having the wrong people on the bus in the first place. If you get the right people on the bus, and the wrong people “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 8 off, you don’t need stultifying bureaucracy.” (p. 143) In a culture of discipline, employees do not need to be disciplined, because they have selfdiscipline, so they can be given greater freedom and responsibility to do their jobs. (6) Technology Accelerators Collins warns against thinking of technology as a key to success. Among good-to-great executives, fully 80 percent didn’t even mention technology as one of the top five factors in the transformation of their companies to greatness—even in companies that became famous for their pioneering applications of technology. Instead, executives should focus on their Hedgehog Concept and think about what types of technology, if any, will be needed to accomplish their mission—and then become pioneers in those technologies, Collins writes. Executives should not seize on every technological fad simply out of fear of being left behind. “When used right, technology becomes an accelerator of momentum, not a creator of it,” Collins explains. (p. 152) (7) The Flywheel and the Doom Loop To imagine the process by which Collins’ 11 great companies became great, he asks readers to “picture a huge, heavy flywheel—a massive metal disk mounted horizontally on an axle, about 30 feet in diameter, two feet thick, and weighing about 5,000 pounds. Now imagine that your task is to get the flywheel rotating on the axle as fast and long as possible.” (p. 164) The point is that it takes time and the combined efforts of many people making many decisions and doing many things to achieve success. “The flywheel image captures the overall feel of what it was like inside the companies as they went from good to great,” Collins writes. “No matter how dramatic the end result, the good-to-great transformations never happened in one fell swoop. There was no single defining action, no grand program, no one killer innovation, no solitary lucky break, no wrenching revolution.” (p. 165) In fact, some of the good-to-great executives said they were not even aware that a major transformation was under way until they were well into it. By contrast, the less successful companies tended to show a different pattern, what Collins calls the “Doom Loop.” The Doom Loop is marked by chronic restructuring, fads, “management hoopla,” action without disciplined thought, and above all else—inconsistency. When Success is not a Matter of Profits 9 When Success Is Not a Matter of Profits When Success Is Not a Matter of Profits A t first glance, it is easy to doubt the relevance of Good to Great principles in policing. The essence of being great in the private sector is measured by profits and stock market performance. It goes without saying that profits are not a way to calibrate success in policing. So how can Collins’ book be a guide to law enforcement management? Collins takes that question head-on in Good to Great and the Social Sectors. It is a question of inputs and outputs, Collins writes. “In business, money is both an input (a resource for achieving greatness) and an output (a measure of greatness). In the social sectors, money is only an input, and not a measure of greatness.” So adapting Good to Great to enterprises other than business is simply a matter of defining success, or the organization’s desired “output.” For policing, the obvious definition of success is reducing crime, Collins indicates. But sometimes it takes leadership to recognize the obvious, he writes: “In 1995, officers at the New York City Police Department (NYPD) found an anonymous note posted on the bulletin board,” Collins writes. “‘We’re not report takers,’ the note proclaimed. ‘We’re the police.’ The note testified to the psychological shift when then-Police Commissioner William J. Bratton inverted the focus from inputs to outputs. Prior to Bratton, the NYPD assessed itself primarily on input variables—such as arrests made, reports taken, cases closed, budgets met—rather on the output variable of reducing crime. Bratton set audacious output goals, such as attaining doubledigit annual declines in felony crime rates….” (p. 4, Good to Great and the Social Sectors) Even in fields where it is difficult to measure a desired output, leaders should try to apply Good to Great principles, Collins writes. He cites an example from the world of fine arts: “When Tom Morris became executive director of the Cleveland Orchestra in 1987, the orchestra faced deficits exceeding 10 percent, a small and stagnant endowment, and a struggling local economy. Prior to taking the position, Morris asked two key board members, ‘What do you want me to do if I come here?’ Their answer: Make an already great orchestra even greater, defined by artistic excellence.” Collins praises the Cleveland Orchestra for its brazen decision to aim to become one of the three greatest orchestras in the world, and letting the endowment and other “inputs” take care of themselves. (The orchestra’s endowment tripled.) “Clear, rigorous thinking is precisely what Cleveland’s Tom Morris and New York’s Commissioner Bratton brought to their work,” Collins writes. “They separated inputs from outputs, and had the discipline to hold their organizations accountable for achievement in the outputs.” “To throw our hands up and say, ‘But we cannot measure performance in the social sectors the way you can in a business’ is simply lack of discipline,” “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 10 Collins adds. “All indicators are flawed, whether qualitative or quantitative. Test scores are flawed, mammograms are flawed, crime data are flawed, customer service data are flawed, patient-outcome data are flawed. What matters is not finding the perfect indicator, but settling upon a consistent and intelligent method of assessing your output results, and then tracking your trajectory with rigor.” (pp.7–8, Good to Great and the Social Sectors) Application of the Concepts in the Public Sector: A Case Study from the Public Schools 11 Application of the Concepts in the Public Sector: Application of the Concepts in the Public Sector: A Case Study from the Public Schools A Case Study from the Public Schools I t was questions about how to apply Good to Great principles to nonbusiness organizations that prompted PERF to invite Jody Leleck to be the keynote speaker at the Good to Great conference. PERF hoped to take the discussion beyond the world of policing, to include other types of governmental, charitable, or nonprofit organizations. Ms. Leleck’s remarkable success in using the principles of Good to Great fit that bill perfectly. As principal of the Broad Acres Elementary School in Montgomery County, Maryland, Ms. Leleck overcame challenges that plague many government institutions—setting strict performance standards for employees, obtaining cooperation from labor unions, finding ways to remove some people from the bus, and maintaining a tight focus on long-term goals. As a result, she transformed a failing school into an up-and-coming school, and produced an example with which police executives can identify. Ms. Leleck accepted her first assignment as a principal in 1999 when she was sent to Broad Acres. By all standard measures, Broad Acres had a failing student population, and the school was on the brink of being taken over by the state. It was Ms. Leleck’s job to try to turn the school around. Montgomery County is an affluent county, but its prosperity does not spill into the Broad Acres neighborhood, where a large immigrant community, primarily from Central America, lives. While many of the parents work very hard, 90 percent of the population lives below the poverty line. When students leave school at the end of the day, most are untended because both parents are working. Without question, Broad Acres is a needy community, and the school had attempted to respond to the obvious needs. The principal who preceded Ms. Leleck had been a committed caretaker of the children and community. She had helped build a clinic adjacent to the school that provided medical assistance and social services to the community. The school staff and teachers had a benevolent commitment to ensuring that children were clothed, had medical care, and were exposed to the broader society. The commitment to meeting those needs may have come at the expense of academic achievement. Test scores were miserable. In 2000, only 12 percent of third graders and 21 percent of fifth graders scored “proficient” in reading. Only 5 percent of third graders and 15 percent of fifth graders scored “proficient” in math. Once Principal Leleck understood that there appeared to be no stated commitment to academic excellence, she made academic achievement the major focus of everything the school did. She applied the Hedgehog Concept of focusing on one objective and getting rid of every activity—including “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 12 3 By the time Ms. Leleck moved from Broad Acres in 2004, two teachers at Broad Acres had become or were working to achieve National Board Certification. The data for 2006 is that six more teachers achieved National Board Certification. There are 43 teachers at the school. popular ones like assemblies and field trips—that interfered with this one overriding objective. In one way, Ms. Leleck departs from the principles of Good to Great. Unlike Collins’ most successful business leaders, Ms. Leleck did not “get the right people on the bus” first and then work with those people on defining a mission. Instead, she decided to focus on academic excellence and then tried to obtain a staff that would commit to that mission. Principal Leleck was severely limited in changing the Broad Acres staff; she inherited teachers who had been at the school for as long as 20 years. Nevertheless, she offered experienced and caring teachers the opportunity to decide whether they could commit to the vision and remain on the staff. Labor unions may be an even greater challenge for school administrators than for police chiefs. Ms. Leleck and Montgomery County Schools Superintendent Jerry Weast made a key decision. Rather than assuming that the unions would not support the new focus on academic achievement, they included Bonnie Cullison, the head of the teachers’ union, as a member of the team that identified the goals and set the teaching standards. Leleck, Weast, and Cullison understood that teachers would have to buy into the changes, and they began with the assumption that teachers cared about the success of their students. They created opportunities for teachers to be part of the design and administration of the program, and they secured funds to pay teachers to work a longer day once a week so they could participate in planning and evaluation meetings. And teachers were encouraged to take part in professional development opportunities, such as attaining National Board Certification.3 One of the lasting benefits of the Broad Acres experience was the ongoing dialogue established between the school administration and the unions— an exchange focusing on a shared concern rather than a divisive issue such as wage negotiations. Ms. Leleck had to confront some experienced teachers who simply did not belong “on the bus” at Broad Acres and needed to be persuaded that their talents could be better used in a different school. In doing this, Ms. Leleck sent a powerful signal that she understood the “brutal facts” at Broad Acres and was prepared to deal with them. The trio of the superintendent, principal, and union head held individual discussions with these teachers, striving to make them feel that their skills were appreciated and could be used more effectively in another setting. For the teachers interested in staying, Ms. Leleck requested that they make a three-year commitment to the school and that they become involved in planning the changes and assessing progress. About 60 percent Application of the Concepts in the Public Sector: A Case Study from the Public Schools 13 of the teachers chose to stay. New teachers who shared the commitment to excellence were hired; among them were a reading specialist and a math specialist. Administrators and teachers worked together to define standards of performance, to define the activities and behaviors that were expected of teachers if they were to be successful, and to develop assessment measures for those standards. This was a major break with the past, when teachers had been judged primarily on their ability to merely keep order in the classroom. The union could see the advantage of a system that reflected and rewarded A UNION LEADER’S PERSPECTIVE T he assumption is probably no different in policing than in the school system: Managers begin by believing that unions will oppose change. A more useful assumption is that the workers on the ground have as much interest in delivering excellent service as administrators do. Unions have an additional concern for employee welfare, but that does not automatically translate into opposition to organizational improvement. Teachers want to see students learn as much as police officers want citizens to be safe. Fortunately for all concerned, the administrators responsible for Broad Acres School acknowledged the professional commitment of the teachers there. Understanding that the union and the school district shared goals, a joint team was established to design an intervention program that would help students be successful. We focused on the best interest of the school while realizing the need for a plan that would serve everyone, insofar as that was possible. There were teachers at Broad Acres who did not belong on the “new bus,” but you could not just sweep them aside. They had talents that needed to be recognized and respected. When the staff was provided with the expectations of the intervention program, they were asked to decide if they wanted to stay “on this bus” or relocate to settings where there was a better fit for their talents. Because we were a team that shared a focus, and because we dealt with reality rather than assumptions, we were able to accomplish an enormous amount of improvement with relatively little conflict. I want to share with you my conviction that those who deliver service—whether it be education or policing—care about the quality of that service. If managers will accept that premise and include employees in the planning of organizational improvement, the results will be worth all the effort it takes to build the bridge between employees and managers. Bonnie Cullison President Montgomery County Education Association “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 14 the complexity of teacher roles and responsibilities, and it became a strong advocate of the standards. The standards were important, in part, because they defined expectations. The vast majority of workers are more comfortable when they know what is expected of them. There were teachers at Broad Acres Elementary who had never been told what was expected of them. Next came what Collins calls “confronting the brutal facts, yet never losing faith.” The most brutal fact was that by all objective measures, the school was failing—and many parents did not even know it. The children were being cared for, and many students, while not achieving academic success, were enjoying their schooling experience. Parents had to be presented with the test data, and they had to be told they could use vouchers to move their children elsewhere. Initially, many parents did not embrace the changes. As the curriculum became more rigorous, some students complained to parents that TAKING A SCHOOL ‘FROM DREADFUL TO VERY GOOD’ A s a principal of what was the lowest-performing school in our system, I appreciate the concepts in Good to Great because they supported me in my belief that all children can meet or exceed standards. For me, the key concepts were hiring and empowering the right people, focusing on things that would make a difference for children, making decisions and allocating resources based on data, and using continuous improvement to consistently maintain high expectations. During a period of four years, Broad Acres Elementary achieved remarkable success. By 2004, the Maryland State Assessment scores indicated that 75 percent of third graders and 60 percent of fifth graders were proficient in reading (compared to 12 percent and 21 percent, respectively, in 2000). In 2004, 67 percent of third graders and 54 percent of fifth graders were proficient in math (compared to 5 percent and 15 percent in 2000). Broad Acres moved not from good to great, but from dreadful to very good, with abundant evidence that the commitment to constant improvement has been instilled as the new organizational culture. The flywheel remains in motion because teachers respond to each year’s increase in scores with, “Just wait until next year; we can do better!” Jody Leleck Former Principal of Broad Acres Elementary School Acting Associate Superintendent Office of Curriculum & Instructional Programs Montgomery County Public School System Application of the Concepts in the Public Sector: A Case Study from the Public Schools 15 the teachers were working them too hard and that school was no longer fun. But parents, and perhaps immigrant parents most of all, value education, and these parents needed to be shown that their children had been receiving an unsatisfactory education and that the new ethos at Broad Acres would prepare them to succeed in the future. Ultimately, no parents chose to move their children. Jim Collins’ book was published during the second year of the restructuring process, and Jody Leleck discovered it. In it she found affirmation for many of the things she and her team already were doing—and encouragement for sticking to their plans, no matter how difficult the course seemed at times. Sharing the book with others on her team was a way of reinforcing their shared commitment. When things got worse before they got better (test scores dropped even lower in the second year), they found inspiration from reading that Good to Great businesses experienced the same uphill battle but ultimately were successful because their focus carried them to their objectives. In other words, Principal Leleck and her team maintained focus on their Hedgehog Concept. They pushed their Flywheel until it began turning and LEARNING TO BE GREAT L eaders in public service agencies need to recognize that complacency means failure. They no longer have a monopoly on providing the public with critical services. The evidence is increasingly apparent that the public sector is engaged in an entrepreneurial competition with the private sector. For-profits and nonprofits already offer choices about educational opportunities, and other public services are facing similar challenges. Private security agencies, for example, abound not just in retail establishments but in neighborhood communities. In my organization—a public school system of more than 20,000 employees serving more than 139,000 students with an annual budget of $1.7 billion—we are making progress. We are making unorthodox inroads in educational reform and demonstrating unique capabilities in teaching and learning. Kindergarten children are being taught to read, when only a few years ago, they were taught basically to play. We are introducing rigorous standards of achievement at every grade level. We are focusing on doing what we do—education—and trying to do it better than anyone else. All of our components are focused on ensuring that every classroom has a quality teacher and that every teacher has quality support. All of us are continuing to learn how to sharpen our competitive edge. We are learning to be great. Collins teaches us that simply being good is not good enough. Jerry D. Weast, Ed.D. Superintendent of Schools Montgomery County Public Schools “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 16 gained momentum, and they did not succumb to the Doom Loop of changing course with every setback. It could be said that even before Collins invented these terms, Leleck was showing an intuition for greatness. Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 17 Application of the Good to Great Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing Principles in Policing T he Broad Acres case study demonstrates the utility of the GTG ideas in a school. But what about policing? Do the ideas fit as well in this profession? PERF’s GTG conference members explored each principle in turn. (1) Level 5 Leaders Collins and his staff were surprised by their finding that the Level 5 executives who led each of the GTG companies to greatness were quiet, selfeffacing, and humble. If they had an expectation, it was that they would find flashy, high-profile, publicity-seeking leaders. In fact, according to Collins and his researchers, self-promoting leaders often were found heading the less successful comparison companies. The quiet leaders should not be construed as being without ego; they were strong and driven, but their ego needs were channeled “…away from themselves into the larger goal of building a great company” (p. 21), and they were driven to build a great company rather than a great name for themselves. What about policing? Conference participants said that everyone could think of one or more people they considered Level 5 leaders, but there are not many who are nationally known. The characteristic tendency of Level 5 leaders to maintain low profiles may keep them out of the national limelight. There are scores of police leaders in this country who serve in low-profile departments, and one would like to believe that many have the qualities of Level 5 leaders. Collins himself believes that Level 5 leaders in any field are more prevalent than we realize. How to spot them? “Look for situations where extraordinary results exist but where no individual steps forth to claim excess credit,” he says. (p. 37) Regarding the nature of the personalities of Level 5 leaders, however, there may be an argument for a critical distinction when it comes to police leaders. Given the very public nature of policing and the high-visibility issues that police leaders must face, such as the use of force and the need for fairness in police officers’ dealings with the citizens they serve, it can be argued that what police refer to as “command presence” is a critical trait. In fact, when a “defining moment” comes—a terrorism event or other catastrophe, a controversial police officer use of force, the killing of an officer, the kidnapping of a child—if a chief fails to rise to the occasion and speak in a very public, visible way, he risks losing credibility with the community and officers in his or her department. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 18 Police chiefs, like other executives, offer themselves for service but do not select themselves. If police organizations need more Level 5 leaders, mayors and city managers ought to be reading Collins’ book to better understand the types of chiefs they should be seeking. Collins recognizes this issue in the private sector as well: The great irony is that the animus and personal ambition that often drive people to positions of power stand at odds with the humility required for Level 5 leadership. When you combine that irony with the fact that boards of directors frequently operate under the false belief that they need to hire a larger-than-life, egocentric leader to make an organization great, you can quickly see why Level 5 leaders rarely appear at the top of our institutions. (pp. 36–37) Conference participants expressed the view that, even if they were not Level 5 leaders, Collins’ work helped them examine their leadership styles and consider whether there might be advantages in trying to reshape them. Collins believes that many people have the potential to achieve the fifth level. [U]nder the right circumstances—self-reflection, conscious personal development, a mentor, a great teacher, loving parents, a significant life experience, a Level 5 boss, or any number of other factors—they begin to develop. (p. 37) An interesting issue that deserves more attention is the preparation of the next generation of leaders. Collins notes that Level 5 leaders set their successors up for even greater success, while Level 4 leaders do not. (p. 39) In policing, “brief tenure” is often cited as a reason for not being able to identify and develop the next generation of leaders, but this reasoning assumes that such work has to be the personal undertaking of the chief. Level 5 leaders are often committed to the implementation of processes (empowering managers to make important decisions, creating leadership academies, and sponsoring personnel for external management and leadership training, for example) that help ensure the identification and preparation of the next leaders. Bob McNeilly served almost a decade as police chief in Pittsburgh. During that period he successfully reformed the department in the wake of a Justice Department consent decree. In his last year as police chief, he sent eight of his commanders to a threeweek executive development program, something police chiefs in their final years rarely do. In cultivating and showing respect for his aides, McNeilly maintained a “culture of discipline” in the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police and gave those commanders a professional gift for life. Similarly, in eight years as police chief in Washington, D.C., Chuck Ramsey transformed a troubled department into one that is well respected Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 19 for crime reduction and controlled use of force. A number of managers who served with Chief Ramsey have now become police chiefs in other cities, and Ramsey closely mentored Cathy Lanier, who succeeded him as chief. There are small and large ways to encourage and mentor future leaders. Jody Leleck, keynote speaker at the conference that generated this document, encouraged the chiefs at the table to bring their bright, upcoming assistants to conferences. Travel budgets often are tight, of course, but it would cost little to invite one or more lieutenants or captains to accompany the chief when she or he addresses a local civic club or attends a community function in a formal capacity. While there may be a fine line between showing favoritism and providing mentoring opportunities, drawing that line is one of the chief ’s less onerous leadership responsibilities. The decentralization that has accompanied the movement to community policing in some cities has had the additional benefit of giving potential future chiefs on-the-job training as the commander of a full-service area or district station. In some departments these local commanders have the responsibility for managing personnel, making assignments, dealing with media inquiries, and being responsible for crime. Even a medium-sized city like Madison, Wisconsin, with a population of less than 300,000, has four district stations, each of which serves as an enriched learning environment for a future chief. Another, less formal, means of developing leaders occurs when organizational heads encourage their command staff to think on their own, to ask questions, and to challenge the boss in a constructive way. This kind of internal encouragement of managerial risk-taking and decision-making strengthens a management team both individually and collectively. DIVERSITY OF OPINIONS AS A KEY TO SUCCESS Y ou need to work harder than those around you. You need to understand and be in contact with the work level of the organization, and you need to surround yourself with a diverse group of people who will congratulate you when you are right and, more importantly, tell you when you are wrong. If your closest advisors look like you, talk like you, and think like you, you will never make the changes necessary to be successful. William Lansdowne Chief of Police San Diego Police Department “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 20 As Collins explains it, one of the crucial elements in taking a company from good to great is somewhat paradoxical. The great companies had executives, on the one hand, who argued and debated, sometimes violently, in pursuit of the best answers. But on the other hand, everyone unified fully behind decisions, regardless of any parochial interests. Lorne Kramer, city manager in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and formerly the police chief there, also stresses the importance of leading with questions. He argues that chiefs need to push everyone on their team to have and to express an opinion—not only to get information and develop leaders, but to protect themselves and their departments. “It’s always the quiet ones who will kill you,” he said. “If they are silent, they don’t own it. By their silence they will undermine what you are trying to do.” Collins notes that Level 5 leaders tend to develop deep and strong executive teams to which they look for direction. He warns against a different type of leader: the “genius with a thousand helpers.” Collins isn’t using the word “genius” sarcastically; such a leader may in fact be very smart. But the problem is that “when the genius leaves, the helpers are often lost,” Collins explains. “Or, worse, they try to mimic their predecessor with bold, visionary moves (trying to act like a genius, without being a genius) that prove unsuccessful.” (p. 46) Bill Bratton, chief in Los Angeles, former commissioner in New York City and Boston, and head of the transit police in New York and Boston, agrees that the boss does not need to have all the good ideas if the boss has the courage and ability to select team members who can and will voice ideas. In fact, Bratton repeatedly has attributed his success to hiring people who are smarter than he is (about some things, anyway). (2) Getting the Right People on the Bus Collins contends that people are not an organization’s most important asset. Rather, “the right people are” (p. 51), and he places strong emphasis on the need to get “the right people on the bus, the wrong people off the bus, and the right people in the right seats” on the bus. (p. 13) While it is difficult to argue this point, the realities of the police world make this one of Collins’ more difficult principles to apply. When police chiefs are appointed, they inherit nearly all of their personnel, including poor performers and those who are unenthusiastic about the chief ’s philosophy. If the new chief is lucky, a number of these people may be near retirement or may be offered early retirement by a city manager or city council. This will provide the opportunity for some people to exit the bus if they don’t like the new direction and will provide Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 21 key opportunities for the chief to seek the people best suited to be on the new chief ’s bus. Picking the right people and getting the wrong people off the bus are critical factors for success in both public and private organizations. A police department that is top-heavy with administrators promoted by the previous chief may present a formidable challenge for a new chief who is committed to significant change and is potentially a Level 5 leader destined for greatness. How do you assess the qualifications of the people who are in the seats? Who can be moved, when, and with what consequences to make room for the right people? One participant at PERF’s Good to Great conference inherited an especially dire situation. When Jim Lewis became chief in Green Bay, Wisconsin, he was faced with a system in which, for decades, promotions had been based solely on seniority. Competence had never even been a consideration for promotion. Lewis recognized that until he changed this policy, his department would always be captive to a system that rewarded longevity over exemplary performance. Lewis, a quiet and determined man, focused on changing the system, and he succeeded in establishing a new one that rewarded performance, accomplishments, and successful experience. David Couper, who served as chief in Madison, Wisconsin, for 20 years with civil service protection, had some advantages in staffing his bus. During two decades, he was able to hire a large majority of the officers in the department. Further, during his term of service he had wide latitude in structuring promotional exams. In Chief Couper’s department, as in most, however, an officer had to perform extremely poorly to be removed from the organization, and many older officers remained loyal to a style of policing different from the one Couper was promoting. Couper devised a string of strategies to sidestep this “B Team.” He developed an officer advisory group that met with him monthly to discuss organizational issues. Slots were set aside to guarantee representation for women and ethnic minorities who were underrepresented among older officers. When the department set out to create a long-range plan, Chief Couper defined criteria for membership on the planning team to include anticipated future service of at least 10 years. He wanted planners who had a stake in what they were planning, and he wanted younger planners who were more inclined to embrace his community-oriented philosophy of policing. Couper’s officer advisory group was a textbook example of Collins’ suggestion that leaders create a “Council” to develop an organization’s Hedgehog Concept and consider other issues and problems. (p. 114) The Council is a group created by the chief executive to argue and debate, but not to form a consensus; the executive maintains responsibility for making final decisions. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 22 By whatever means are available, personnel problems have to be confronted in an organization that aspires to greatness. Most police chiefs have had to deal with at least one person who is a major organizational roadblock. For a new chief, especially one who comes from outside the department, this can be a difficult challenge. Other employees may sit back, withholding allegiance and information, until they see how the new leader performs. In fact, the other employees may wish the roadblock were gone but may not give the new leader any indication of their feelings, leaving the new chief to wonder whether removing the individual will be applauded or will detonate a political bomb. Collins’ advice is to bite the bullet: When you know you need to make a people change, act…Letting the wrong people hang around is unfair to all the right people, as they inevitably find themselves compensating for the inadequacy of the wrong people.…Waiting too long before acting is equally unfair to the people who need to get off the bus. For every minute you allow a person to continue holding a seat when you know that person will not make it in the end, you’re stealing a portion of his life, time that he could spend finding a better place where he could flourish. (p. 56) The new leader who dawdles before removing the roadblock risks signaling weakness or lack of commitment to his organizational goals, leaving other employees to speculate about whether he or she really “means it.” Paul Evans bit the bullet in Boston. Promoted from inside to be the commissioner, he had spent his entire career with the people who initially were on his management team. He had grown up with some, served in Vietnam with others. One had been in his wedding. But five years into his tenure as commissioner, Evans realized these people were coasting and were fighting among themselves rather than working together. Evans would later reflect, “They had it made.” They were no longer “hungry” or focused on the future of the department. There would be no forward movement while they were in position. Evans needed to change who was on the bus, and he wound up replacing almost the entire command staff, moving all and demoting some. In facing the brutal facts, Evans recognized that taking the department to the next level required personnel changes that could cost him lifelong friendships. When Bill Bratton became the police commissioner in New York City, he looked at the available command talent and decided he had to reach down at least two generations to get leaders who were motivated to improve the organization. He promoted one- and two-star chiefs and inspectors and overnight wiped out several generations of command Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 23 staff. This was unheard of in New York. In one of his key appointments, Bratton promoted Jack Maple, then a lieutenant in the Transit Police, to deputy commissioner for crime control. It was Maple who designed CompStat, the revolutionary crime-fighting strategy that today is used in countless police agencies around the world. In 1996 Bratton elevated John Timoney to first deputy commissioner. In 1994 Timoney had become the youngest chief of the department in NYPD’s history. He was one of the department’s most respected leaders and represented the new way of thinking. When he became the chief in Los Angeles, Bratton recruited several outsiders to his leadership team—again, unprecedented. But he also promoted a number of well-respected insiders. In both New York and Los Angeles, he identified and promoted commanders who already had demonstrated the kind of work ethic and values he wanted to instill in these agencies.4 Each of these men—Lewis, Evans, Couper, and Bratton—had a simple message: It is no longer business as usual. There is a new way of doing business—get on the bus, sit in the right seat, and don’t be afraid to fail. These personnel changes were highly controversial, but over time, all proved to be right. It can take time for a change to be validated, and for new people to prove themselves and develop credibility. Sometimes tough changes can be tempered with kindness. In Colorado Springs, Manager Lorne Kramer, in a move to get the wrong people off the bus, changed three department heads but managed to treat them very well during the transition. The double message was not missed throughout city government: (1) You have to be able to do the job in order to work here, and (2) We treat people decently. Level 5 leaders face the facts and make difficult decisions. They have confidence in their decisions and stick by them through the controversy. And they seek ways to be gracious, as well as humble. What if you cannot make such dramatic moves? What if you cannot fire the person who needs to be removed? What if the political environment makes transfer to another part of the system problematic? What do you do with the misfits? Where do you send them? School systems are similar to police departments in that there are many schools in any system, and it is possible for teachers to transfer from one school to another. But like police agencies, schools have a limit on using this transfer strategy to solve personnel problems, because no school wants to be a repository for ineffective teachers, just as a police patrol division will not be eager to receive an officer who has failed to perform well in another part of the organization. Some police departments assign officers who are not deemed “suitable for street work” to units that take incident reports by phone. Unfortunately, poor attitudes transmitted over a phone line can be just as damaging as those transmitted face to face. It is hard to hide a bad officer. 4 For example, Bratton brought in John Miller, a gifted New York journalist and network anchor, to head up his Counter Terrorism Bureau. Miller’s considerable experience covering terrorism in the Middle East for ABC News was unprecedented, and he became sought after around the country by local and federal agencies. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 24 Furthermore, labor unions and other bodies (e.g., civil service boards) can have considerable power to block efforts to jettison employees who simply do not like the new organizational direction. The manager who wants to demote or remove an unacceptable employee needs a lot of evidence. We have, on occasion, seen a chief ’s entire tenure consumed by the effort required to remove a single employee who is not performing adequately. Performance Evaluations In the private sector, a manager’s opinion that an employee is performing poorly may be all that is needed to fire the employee. In the public sector, extensive documentation of poor performance is necessary. Performance evaluation remains an ineffective tool in the police management toolbox. Because the policing job is enormously complex, many departments still have not created performance evaluations that adequately reflect the work police do. The tendency is to measure that which is easy to measure, rather than what matters. “Orderliness” (including neatness, attendance, punctuality) and conformity with organizational rules and regulations still constitute the bulk of what is measured in many police personnel evaluations. “Don’t mess up” (which sometimes translates into “Don’t do anything”), and you won’t get a bad evaluation. Good performance evaluations are not only assessment tools; they also are training tools that communicate to the employee what the organization expects. And they become motivational tools when outcomes for the officer are tied to the evaluation scores, even if that outcome is “only” recognition by colleagues of a job well done. Such recognition cannot be given unless the assessment tool reflects the nature of the work. Years ago, a consultant to the Houston Police Department asked how employees could be expected to act like supervisors, managers, and leaders when everyone in the organization was evaluated through entire careers with an instrument that was designed to control a 20-year-old, high-testosterone male who was armed with a gun and given a fast car to drive. It’s a question many departments still need to answer. Until police agencies invest the effort to produce valid and reliable instruments for measuring the real work of policing, it will remain very difficult to move nonperformers or poor performers out of the organization based on regular evaluations. On the question of deciding whom to hire, conference participants who felt they have been successful in creating a good organizational culture tended to agree with Collins that character attributes are far more Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 25 important than “…specific educational background, practical skills, specialized knowledge, or work experience.” (p. 51) For Chief Charles Deane (see sidebar), the critical attribute is integrity. For Chief David Couper, it is a person’s attitude toward people—whether the applicant thinks people are basically good or basically bad. Both chiefs long ago made the commitment to personally interview every candidate before the candidate signed on—no small matter, as both of their departments have hundreds of officers. And INTEGRITY AS A BUS TICKET I t could be argued that the success of the Prince William County Police Department can, in many ways, be attributed to the commitment to get the right people on the bus and to move the wrong ones off. As Jim Collins suggests, finding the “right” person may have more to do with identifying character traits and innate ability than specific knowledge or skills. During a period of 35 years, the department has evolved from a fledgling, obscure organization to a well-respected police agency. In that time, its leadership has never wavered from the belief that standards, especially those dealing with issues of integrity, are of paramount importance. That belief is embodied in the fact that we would rather work with fewer staffers than lower our standards for employment. This commitment has been demonstrated in terms of rigorous recruitment, selection5 and training, a thorough and unbiased transfer and promotion process, and a culture that advocates the certainty of dismissal for proven dishonesty. For example: The son of a well-respected senior staff member was not hired because he did not meet standards. The son of a well-respected middle manager was dismissed from the basic training academy because he lied about the loss of an item of issued clothing. Individuals who have not had consistently good work records have not been promoted in spite of their exceptional performance on tests and in the assessment center process. It has been our belief that elements of the promotion process are of value in screening candidates, but a proven work record and unquestioned integrity are required essentials for promotion. One such case resulted in a lawsuit against the chief and agency that could have been settled by promoting the individual. That offer was rejected because of a work record that supported the consensus that the person was not suited to supervise. Today, police staff clearly understand the department’s expectations regarding integrity. Chief Charles Deane Prince William County (Virginia) Police Department 5 For the past 15 years, the final step in the employment process has been a personal interview with the chief of police. At that meeting, if offered employment, the applicant is informed of the department’s expectation regarding honesty and integrity. This theme is continued throughout basic training. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 26 they agreed that the answer to chiefs who say they don’t have the time to do this is, “You don’t have the time not to do this.” Another way to avoid recruitment mistakes—whether recruiting new officers or individuals to fill management positions—is to take your time. One participant reported that his organization had chosen several times to work below authorized personnel strength to avoid taking candidates who were less than qualified. Another said that when he is new to a department, he does not make managerial-level appointments until he has had considerable time to assess the candidates. He gives potential managerial candidates a number of varied assignments so he can assess their performance. When Bill Bratton becomes the chief in a department, he immediately tends to the needs and concerns of patrol personnel. He will look at equipment, education, and the basic everyday tools an officer needs to do the job. Bratton recognized long ago that if you do not address the everyday working conditions of officers, you miss an ideal opportunity to have an impact on an agency. Bill Lansdowne, chief of the San Diego Police Department, similarly argues that greater focus needs to be put on the beat officer who is the one who delivers police service. Career Development One alternative to moving people off the bus is to help them become more effective as the organization moves in a new direction. Although Collins cautions against wasting too much time with an individual who does not belong in the organization, the CEO of Circuit City, one of the 11 “great” companies, argues for trying to salvage the good ones who simply do not fit. I spent a lot of time thinking and talking about who sits where on the bus. I called it “putting square pegs in square holes and round pegs in round holes.” Instead of firing honest and able people who are not performing well, it is important to try to move them once or even two or three times to other positions where they might blossom. (p. 57) Bruce Romer, chief administrative officer for Montgomery County, Maryland, inherited a management team in need of change. He replaced half of the department heads. But that left another 300 managers who could not be fired but whose support would be critical to moving the county government in new directions. Romer created a new class of employment, collapsing organizational ranks and bringing lower level Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 27 THE MADISON, WISCONSIN LEADERSHIP PROMOTIONAL ACADEMY: DEVELOPING THE RIGHT PEOPLE I n the 1980s, then-Chief David Couper instituted the Leadership Promotional Academy in the Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department (MPD). The Academy initially was open to anyone who wished to learn more about department policies and procedures, and it was required of anyone who wanted to be considered for promotion. The Leadership Academy is a two-week course open to anyone who wishes to compete for promotion, with the approval of the individual’s supervisor. Work performance during the previous 12 months must be judged satisfactory. A person wishing to be promoted is required to have attended an Academy within the five years prior to the current promotional process. The Academy consists of 10 days of classes, during which three or four different topics are covered each day. The chief opens with a history and overview of “Quality” in the MPD and discusses the organizational mission and core values. Ethical leadership is another topic. A class on current issues in policing is led by Professor Herman Goldstein. Other classes covering organizational roles, policies, and procedures are taught by as many as 30 different MPD members representing every rank. Each of the 10 days of class is coordinated by a different lieutenant. In addition to learning course content, aspiring leaders meet the current leadership of the department and, in turn, are assessed by the people teaching the classes. On Day 2 of the course, students are introduced to the promotional project, which is a key component of the course. Each student is expected to identify and analyze some work process or system in the department that may need improvement and to suggest an idea for improving it. They write papers and make an oral presentation to the members of the management team who are responsible for the area of the organization under scrutiny. Over the years, MPD managers have gleaned several good ideas from this process. The advantages of the Academy are multiple. Students learn about the organization and about leadership theories and practices. They meet organizational leaders they might not previously have known, and leaders become familiar with students. Course coordinators and class teachers get handson leadership training, and the entire organization benefits from the generation of new ideas. Most important, the process helps ensure that all aspiring leaders have basic preparation, and it helps identify those who are best qualified to board the leadership bus. A similar academy is held for officers seeking promotion to the rank of detective. Chief Noble Wray Captain Sue Williams Madison Police Department “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 28 managers into an “elite” management team, members of which were given professional training to elevate their management skills. Management training can be a tool for Level 5 leaders to develop a strong management team, but unfortunately, management and leadership training within police departments is likely to be minimal, if not completely absent. There are exceptions in some larger departments, and Madison, Wisconsin (see sidebar), a medium-size department, has an excellent program of leadership training. There are some external training programs. In the last 25 years, PERF’s Senior Management Institute for Policing (SMIP), for one, has had an impact on policing that has been apparent to both participants and observers. Effective leadership programs provide a critical means of developing managers and leaders for organizations that do not have the luxury of being able to provide their own executive development training. They SMIP BUILDS LEADERS O ne of the experiences that helped shape my career was my attendance at PERF’s Senior Management Institute for Police (SMIP) in 1996. Throughout my career, SMIP provided the best executive leadership program to me personally. Many other police executives have shared that impression. When I was chief in Pittsburgh, I sent members of the command staff to SMIP every year. Currently, there are approximately 26 Pittsburgh Bureau of Police SMIP graduates, eight of whom graduated in 2005. This program excels because superb instructors provide an excellent forum during the three-week period. They use an applied, case-based curriculum and rigorously demand thinking in ways one might not be accustomed to. The combination of the intensive curriculum and spending three weeks working with, and learning from, a group of peers presented an excellent learning environment. As a course graduate and as chief, I have witnessed others return from that program better able to accomplish tasks with higher levels of responsibility. My commitment to executive development has strengthened as I have observed members of my staff develop enhanced conceptual skills with the experiences provided by SMIP. This experience has demonstrated that despite the restrictions many police departments may encounter in terms of hiring and discharging, the right kind of training can help develop the right people to occupy the right seats on our bus. Chief Robert McNeilly Elizabeth Township Police Department Former Chief of Pittsburgh Bureau of Police Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 29 can choose to develop the “best available person” into the “best person for the job.” In his discussion of getting the right people on the team, Collins asserts that the “… ‘who’ questions come before ‘what’ decisions.” (In other words, the great companies first got the right people on the bus, and only then began deciding where to steer the bus.) SMIP presumes that the nominating chiefs have answered the “who” question, leaving the program free to address the “what” issues. Bill Bratton has identified the SMIP program as the key development program in his career; unlike any other program he had attended, it exposed him to faculty members outside of policing. Bratton and others found that one of the most effective ways to build an executive team was to send promising managers to leadership programs like SMIP. The impact of national training programs such as the FBI National Academy, Northwestern University Center for Public Safety’s Executive Management Program, Southern Police Institute, California POST-supported West Point Leadership Program run by the Los Angeles Police Department, Police Executive Leadership Program at Johns Hopkins University, and SMIP reaches beyond the classroom and the individual student. When chiefs, in order to send employees to these programs, must identify young officers or managers with the potential to be leaders, they are more likely to become conscious of other ways of developing and using leadership potential in the organization. At the very least, when a student returns from one of these programs, the chief will be inclined to call on him or her to put what they have learned into practice, thereby extending their education. While giving a boost to the careers of the people who attend them, these programs also provide the stimulus for their organizations to identify and reward people with leadership ability. When Chief Lee Brown left Houston to head the New York City Police Department, some of the young leaders he had developed in Houston also left the department to head police agencies in Texas and other states. Many of these new chiefs had participated in national training programs or conferences that gave them a sense of the wider world of policing. What may have been lamented as Houston’s loss should be heralded as a gain for the policing profession. Whatever loss Houston suffered was temporary; under Brown’s direction, the organization had developed the means of fostering leadership, and the department today, headed by Chief Harold Hurtt, is full of bright young managers who will work to improve their own organization before some of them eventually move on to improve other departments. The same thing is happening in Madison, Wisconsin. For years, the Police Department had many excellent young managers who never left town. Madison is a splendid place to live, and a great many people who live there, including police officers, have no desire to be anyplace else. But beginning in the 1980s, “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 30 Madison officers began to be involved in national-level research and to attend conferences and training programs that gave them access to, and information about, other agencies. As their vision of the police world expanded, so too did their willingness to venture into it. While national training programs are excellent, elite institutions, the flip side of the coin is that they are small; relatively few desks are available each year. This lack of comprehensive, widely available leadership training is an issue that has been discussed in American policing for decades, and the solution is probably not yet on the horizon. Even if more training becomes available at a national or regional level, it will REDESIGNING THE BUS IN ARLINGTON, TEXAS T he Arlington, Texas, Police Department is a community policing department in philosophy, function, and structure. This commitment was initiated in 1983 under the leadership of Chief David Kunkle and has been sustained and expanded and 730 officers and professional staffers during my time as chief. Early in the planning stage, it was recognized that the Hedgehog Concept of community policing needed a new burrow (or bus). It wasn’t enough to get the right people on the bus and into the right seats. If community policing was to be effective in that sprawling city, new physical arrangements were needed. Arlington conducts “geographic policing.” A department that had been housed in one central location now occupies three district stations (with a fourth planned) at which a deputy chief has responsibility for all policing services delivered in that area. Districts are further divided into sectors for which lieutenants have responsibility for services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Within sectors, sergeants are responsible for problem solving and service delivery in beats. All property crimes are handled at the district level. This geographically-based arrangement facilitates the sharing of information within and across shifts and promotes the perception of responsibility for an area among all the officers who work there. The newer district stations have workspace for some other city employees, such as Neighborhood Services, thus promoting closer problem-solving relationships across city departments. One has a large community room, complete with media facilities that brings officers and citizens together for special events. The Arlington bus was redesigned so that riders no longer look at the back of head of the passenger in front of them. Seats have been relocated so that passengers with a similar destination can have on-going conversations during the trip. Chief Theron Bowman Arlington Police Department Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 31 remain important for individual police departments to groom their own leaders as Madison is doing with its Leadership Academy. “Flywheel Teams” When a leader cannot move people in and out of the organization, it can be helpful to develop “kitchen cabinets” or “leadership teams” of people who are supportive of the proposed new organizational direction. They brainstorm and plan with the chief and begin to implement ideas in the organization. Their enthusiasm and dynamism can be infectious and can produce enough real change to set the Collins Flywheel in motion, despite apathy or opposition from others in the organization. One conference participant referred to this as her “subversive” means of supporting change. Restructuring If it is difficult to move people on and off the bus, it may be possible to rearrange the seats on the vehicle so passengers can interact more effectively. This might involve organizational restructuring such as changing the number of layers of management and supervision. It might involve restructuring that puts people into area-specific rather than task-specific work groups. Also, work teams might be allowed to ride in smaller buses that are all headed to the same place (to the Hedgehog Concept) but that have developed different routes for getting there. In the last 20 years, many departments have physically decentralized their facilities so that officers can work more directly with citizens and, at the same time, work more closely and effectively with each other. For example, detectives may no longer inhabit separate, secretive work spaces, working instead in close proximity with patrol personnel. Arlington, Texas (see sidebar) has created new facilities in which all personnel serving a neighborhood share office space with their supervisors. The people are the same, but the seats on the bus have been rearranged to facilitate interaction. (3) Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith) Collins notes that the GTG companies were characterized by a pattern of good decisions based on solid information. There may have been some bad decisions but they were significantly outnumbered by good ones, and the GTG companies made many more positive decisions than did the comparison companies. When … you start with an honest and diligent effort to determine the truth of the situation, the right decisions often become self-evident. Not “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 32 always, of course, but often. And even if all decisions do not become self-evident, one thing is certain: You absolutely cannot make a series of good decisions without first confronting the brutal facts. The good-to-great companies operated in accordance with this principle, and the comparison companies generally did not. (p. 70) Perhaps the best example of a “confronting the brutal facts” program in policing is CompStat. Pioneered in New York City under thenCommissioner William Bratton, CompStat refers to weekly citywide and precinct-by-precinct computerized statistical reports on crime— and to meetings in which police commanders are grilled about local increases in crime or other facts revealed by the statistics. As the program has become widely publicized, more departments are following New York’s lead in using current crime data at regularly scheduled meetings to identify problems, compare performance across districts, and assess the impact of responses to previously defined problems. Data do not lie. People may lie about data (or manipulate data to serve their objectives), but when several people are examining the same data and asking hard questions about the data, there is a good probability that the data will reveal “truths that cannot be ignored”—a key GTG precept. Police agencies are fortunate in having more “real-time” data readily available to them than do many other organizations. In well-run police agencies today, crime data are current. It is no longer a matter of waiting for quarterly reports. On Monday morning, commanders and officers can know about the crimes that occurred over the weekend. The most recent incidents and the developing trends can be studied daily. It is not enough for data to be readily available. Managers need to be intimately familiar with the data and involved in analysis and assessment. Data should “belong” to no one group in the organization. History offers some cautionary tales. In the mid-1970s in Dallas, Chief Frank Dyson promised to reduce the crime rate dramatically. Detectives, who were vehemently opposed to Dyson’s plans for organizational change, managed to increase the crime figures month by month. As creators and monitors of the data, they were able to topple the chief by manufacturing false statistics about crime. In Chicago in the 1980s, some district commanders “killed crime” by either not reporting certain crimes or by downgrading their seriousness so that crime would appear to be less of a problem than it actually was. With pressure from the news media and from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program, which refused to publish Chicago’s dubious crime statistics, the department faced the brutal facts of its internal problems and dealt with both the guilty personnel and with the issue of an easily manipulated data system. Mechanisms are Application of the Good to Great Principles in Policing 33 now in place to monitor the veracity of the department’s data. The Chicago experience was a wake-up call to other agencies to improve and monitor their own reporting systems.6 The increasing focus on data has been one of the driving forces in a sea change in policing from solving individual crimes to preventing crime. While crime prevention was a goal urged by some policing prophets in the 1960s and 1970s, it did not become a dominant policing strategy until the 1990s. Computers and computer-savvy personnel have helped move the status of “prevention” from philosophy to practice. The ability to have real-time data and the internal capacity to analyze the data have allowed departments to view crime problems in ways that isolate types of crimes by time and location and to identify patterns that can be strategically addressed. The power of problem-oriented policing begins with data that are used to identify a problem, and ends with data that are used to determine whether the strategy designed to address the problem has been effective. Data from internal surveys can provide a means of detecting and dealing with sensitive situations. When the Clearwater, Florida, department was struggling with internal racial issues, Chief Sid Klein commissioned an employee survey that focused on attitudes about race and about members of other groups. The chief led his officers through discussions of the results. The conversations focused on the data rather than on the feelings of individuals or groups of officers about each other. Again, statistical information was used to prompt a frank attempt to face a brutal reality. Collins’ research indicated that big-ego, larger-than-life leaders often are the least likely to have access to truthful information about their organizations. For one thing, they tend to believe they know the answers and don’t need to bother with data. For another, they tend to surround themselves with people who consider it their responsibility to protect the boss from bad news. By contrast, GTG companies deliberately strive to create climates in which the truth is heard and valued. Collins offers suggestions (pp. 74–80) for creating this climate. (1) Lead with questions, not answers. (2) Engage in dialogue and debate, not coercion. (3) Conduct “autopsies” of mistakes without blame. (4) Build “red flag” mechanisms that prevent you from ignoring the data. He offers an interesting example from the business world in which a company gave its customers the option of “short pay.” Short pay is exactly that: the customer pays less than the amount on the invoice if the service or product was not satisfactory in the customer’s view. 6 In 1983 Pam Zekman, Head of the Investigative Unit of WBBM-TV in Chicago, received the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel Award for her documentary, “Killing Crime: A Police Cop-Out,” which revealed a long-standing Chicago Police Department practice of manipulating crime statistics. “Good to Great” Policing: Application of Business Management Principles in the Public Sector 34 Short pay gives the customer full discretionary power to decide whether and how much to pay on an invoice based upon his own subjective evaluation of how satisfied he feels with a product or service. Short pay...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Leadership – Outline
I. Collin’s assessment of Wells Fargo
II. Wells Fargo’s leadership
III. The failure of the hedgehog concept
IV. Level 5 leadership
V. Leadership failing by setting unattainable goals


Running head: LEADERSHIP

1

Leadership
Name
Institution

LEADERSHIP

2
Leadership

In his assessment of Wells Fargo, Collins was not wrong as he does not use his
guesses or opinions but rather enormous amount of research to inform his assessments. His
assessment helped Wells Fargo identify what they are best at and maximize on them. While
sifting out companies that performed well because they showed excellent performance,
Collins identified Wells Fargo as it met the criteria. Collins did not misinterpret Wells Fargo's
report on success as the company went on to ...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags