Edgar Hoover's Leadership Roles

Education in law, accounting, languages or science was an earlier requirement that Hoover revived. Any agent already in office who was not qualified or who had a criminal record was fired (Denenberg 31). Background checks, interviews, and physical testing became required for all new applicants (Directors). Hoover developed extensive training programs and followed the requirements himself. All agents had to be in top physical condition, and be of outstanding appearance and character. Drinking alcohol was prohibited on and off duty (Denenberg 35). Hoover held discipline as the most important trait. He saw “… an undisciplined law enforcement agency as a menace to society” (Hoover 39). For himself and the people of the FBI, Mr. Hoover set rigid standards of personal behavior. Many agents who were reluctant to work under the strict guidelines quit (Denenberg 31). He never apologized for the high standards for agents; he saw it as a necessity for the FBI’s success (Hoover 41). To this day, Hoover’s contribution to law enforcement management and training make him one of the greatest in the law enforcement field.

Chief Vollmer, known for being an innovative reformer, initiated much restructuring and reform during his one year with the LAPD. He completely reorganized the Department, improving working conditions, establishing new standards of professionalism, and laying the groundwork for what since has become today’s Scientific Investigation Division. He believed that scientific analysis of evidence had a place in police work, so Chief Vollmer ordered the formation of the first crime lab in the United States. The FBI crime laboratory was not established until seven years

The criminal justice system is one of the most important components in the public service system. Since it is a system that citizens encounter daily it would be most beneficial for those who are employed to behave as ethical leaders. Leadership skills and ethical behavior are both parts of the duties of any officer serving the law. Often employees are placed in quick decision situations that can have fatal outcomes if not handled properly. By ensuring that all officers of the law have a set of functioning ethical leadership skills can not only develop a well-rounded individual, but also builds the relationship between the community they serve to protect. The police and other officers of the law have great discretion and power over an individual which makes having responsible, ethically behaving persons on the front lines even more important. With the right training and education, ethical officers can set the bar and improve the quality of life of the community they serve as well as other officers.

Integrity and honor, servanthood, mentorship, professionalism, positive attitude, reinforcement and accountability, and proactive communication is what Jack E. Enter P.h. D states is the seven laws of leadership in his book, “Challenging the Law Enforcement Organization; Proactive Leadership Strategies.” Enter indicates the purpose of this book is to develop leaders whom are abnormal and different from most. This book identifies poor and successful leadership traits based on Enter’s education, his personal experiences in law enforcement, teaching, and from his personal life.

Are the people placed in these roles fit as being a leader? Are they capable of leading in a large quality in the future? There has been research on the varied of different leadership styles with in law enforcement agencies. Other views on the research focus on leadership and how it effects organizational commitment. There is a need to push out research and create different models in order to redesign of law enforcement agencies. According to Patrick J. Hughes “Increasing Organizational Leadership Through the Police Promotional Process”, he explains the current process used in promoting ranks and the available leadership education for law enforcement agents. There are clear connections between leadership styles and how to proper assess a true

Toxic leadership, likely found in all agencies at some point, and the general awareness of toxic leaders with whom individual officers have worked, makes this a real problem for law enforcement agencies. Knowing the root and cause of this type of leadership helps develop understanding on the part of those that can effect a change in leadership within an agency. Comprehending the methods by which such environments develop and their negative impact on the agency as a whole - via individual officers’ experiences, opens the doors on hidden collusion that destroy morale.

In the 1900’s and early 2000’s a series of events would bring a change in priorities for Federal Law Enforcement, namely the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), which was on the brink of being dissolved. “The Inspector General’s 2003 report stated that prior to 9/11, ‘the Bureau devoted significantly more special agent resources to traditional law enforcement activities such as white collar crime,

First, between 1890 and 1930, the management of the police force was centralized. Virtually every decision had to go to the top for approval, with the goal of limiting the low-level officer’s exposure to temptation. To reinforce the hierarchy, specialized units were created to deal with such problems as drugs, youth, guns, and gangs. As Bratton described it, [The department] was divided into little fiefdoms, and some bureau chiefs didn’t even talk to each other…. Each bureau was like a silo: Information entered at the bottom and had to be delivered up the chain of command from one level to another until it reached the chief’s office.

Law enforcements were unable to pursue criminals across state lines. In addition to a total lack of legal necessities, the manner in which the FBI was run prior to Hoover was ineffective at best, once being called "the most corrupt and incompetent agency in Washington" (John Edgar Hoover). Immediately upon his appointment, Hoover set to work. In fact, Hoover would only take the job under the conditions that he would hold singular control over the promotion of his agents, and that no political leverage be used against him to obstruct the agency (John Edgar Hoover). The director established new personnel policies, firing agents that were considered unqualified but hired anyway by previous directors, doing away with promotions based upon seniority, only giving promotions based upon merit, introduced standard performance reviews, and established strict standards of conducts (John Edgar Hoover). Hoover also reorganized the agency in such a way that every officer reported directly to him. The agency became part Hoover just as Hoover became part of the agency, and he did everything that he could to obtain more power for it. Hoover pioneered "personnel training, the use of scientific laboratory techniques, accurate reporting, and filing large volumes of material" (John Edgar Hoover). Hoover established a base from which to create a unprecedented, effective, and powerful crime-fighting organization, the likes of which the world had never seen.

Unlike Robert Kennedy, who “civil rights had displaced organized crime as the issue of law enforcement closest to his heart,” change made Hoover nervous. According to the assistant director of the FBI, Hoover grew up in a segregated D.C. and was a Southern bigot at heart. The only African Americans in Hoover’s life happened to be his housekeepers and chauffeurs. Eventually Robert Kennedy mentioned to Hoover that there should be more than five agents of color in the Bureau, but he wouldn’t hear it. Hoover claimed Kennedy “wanted him to lower [the] qualifications and hire more Negro agents.” Hoover directly said to Kennedy, “Bobby, that’s not going to happen as long as I’m director of this bureau.” Unfortunately, Hoover’s prejudice set the precedent for the racial makeup of the FBI for many years to come. As of 2007, African Americans made up only 5.4% of the 12,617 total agents on the force. There have also been instances in which black agents sued the government for racial discrimination within the Bureau, even as late as the year

Dobbs, C., & Field, M. (1993). Leaders vs. managers: The law enforcement formula. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 62(8), 22-25.

With all of the temptation, attempts to fit into a subculture, and desire to please superiors, mentoring younger officers becomes extremely important. Mentoring can either allow corruption to spread, or it can be also be nipped in the bud. With these issues at hand, it is important that law enforcement agencies invest in upstanding supervisors and leaders in their departments because according to statistics, leaders have a significant impact in preventing corruption and therefore play a significant role in the agencies in which they serve. Therefore, it becomes imperative that effective leaders – who share the same goals – be in place to set the standard for subordinates to see and emulate (Martin 2011). However; while leaders certainly play a critical role in forming the future leaders and overall atmosphere of the organization, they alone cannot ensure that high levels

When discussing leadership within the law enforcement profession is it vital to take the human factors into consideration. There are multiple human factors that the law enforcement leaders must take note of, such as, family issues, financial issues, stress, health, and morale. These human factors that play an important role for law enforcement in general can impact morale, officer safety and the public perception. When addressing the human factors, “Law enforcement leaders should challenge themselves and their employees to increase safety margins by focusing on human factors. By doing so, they will improve proactive communication at their level of influence and develop an organizational culture that values safety and wellness” (Bone, D., Normore,

“Lack of leadership competency is often the most critical obstacle to successful police projects” (Yang, 2012, p. 535).

All organizations, especially law enforcement agencies, require leadership. Maintaining a dependable leadership structure is key to the success of any organization. The philosophy of the modern style of police leadership involves a leader who is strong, competitive and unreceptive to change. Police leadership is based from an autocratic style which is founded on integrity and courage, embracing teamwork, involvement and shared leadership (Cordner & Scarborough, 2010). This style of leadership works well in an emergency situation in which rapid decision making and strict control is needed. The negative aspect to this style of leadership is the inability of the organization to function with the absence of leadership.