In criminal justice organizations, leadership and management are often misinterpreted. Modern police management is responsible for equipping each officer with the management and leadership abilities essential for exercising discretion appropriately. Today, the police focus on problem-solving rather than criminal investigation and are more concerned with residents’ individual issues and concerns. A criminal justice manager may be the owner of an enterprise, an employee, or someone operating under a contract for outsourcing. To ensure future success, competent managers must be well-versed in the principles of the operations and facilities they oversee. They are concerned with maintaining how the office manages the commercial mix and how society views it. The head of an office within the criminal justice system is confined to influencing and encouraging staff. While the manager is responsible for monitoring, regulating, and planning, the leadership role is limited to advising and instructing subordinates.
The distinction between leadership and management is substantial. The primary contrast between leaders and managers is that leaders establish the vision while managers implement it. Leaders propose ideas that a team may use to achieve the objectives and advance the organization (Liphadzi et al., 2017). In contrast, managers understand the leaders’ aspirations in order to make them a reality. They consider what the leaders may have intended and devise strategies for achieving these objectives. Leaders are more interested in fresh ideas, while managers are more concerned with their implementation.
In my experience, managers function by identifying subordinates’ flaws and correcting or punishing them, while leaders prefer to laud their followers for their little accomplishments. Helpful supervisors within the police force show this sort of leader. Leaders engage employees in making dreams a reality by instilling authority in individuals via noncoercive influence. In addition, managers exert control over employees by assigning them tasks and issuing severe instructions. Innovative supervisors are prime examples of these leaders. Leaders that follow a transformational approach nurture fluidity and innovation in their respective departments by acting honestly in a candid manner. In contrast, managers build to order and safety in the company by instructing subordinates on how to do their specific tasks.
Numerous police commanders are efficient managers in that their employees create tangible outcomes. It is seen in the supervisor whose team makes the most arrests each month or the team leader who records the most citizen encounters compared to other officers. Another example might be a division commander who consistently achieves budget requirements. These outcomes comprise second difference between managers and leaders. They are undeniably desirable, but leaders focusing on the bottom line may lose sight of the wider picture, namely the ideas that promote departmental cohesion during times of stress.
In addition, management that focuses excessively on the bottom line may exacerbate tensions between labor and management. The third difference is applicable for law enforcement administrators must be encouraged to be leaders, not managers, to prevent such developments. Administrators must recognize that they will eventually need to lead their employees in a crisis. Therefore, they must instill a feeling of ownership, pride, and commitment in their subordinates, making them willing to carry out their responsibilities. This is the responsibility of a leader, not just a manager.
The fourth distinction between leadership and management is that leaders utilize their position and social influence to establish a vision for change. The use of strategic leadership by police officers is demonstrative of this. In contrast, managers carry out the predetermined organizational procedures and objectives (Liphadzi et al., 2017). Lastly, transformational leaders adopt a motivating approach by encouraging subordinates to self-develop and contribute to the larger purpose. On the other hand, managers use an authoritarian manner to compel employees to listen and comply with their requests.
Recognizing the advantages of leadership and management in the court and justice system can go a long way toward simplifying the legal offices. First, it guarantees order since the criminal justice department has many employees. Exceptional leadership and management will guarantee that these departments operate in unison (Torfing, 2018). The judicial system and penal institutions will correlate with one another. Without excellent leadership, it may be impossible for the numerous agencies involved to integrate their operations with the remainder of the justice system.
Leadership and management also guarantee that companies using the system maintain harmony and that departments do not clash (Kapucu & Ustun, 2018). These organizations’ leaders should convene with the courts to discuss cooperative strategies. In doing so, the order of things will be maintained without a problem. Leadership and management provide the foundation for the competencies and skills required for team success. They are interchangeable, especially when discussing organizational performance effectiveness (Liphadzi et al., 2017). The reason is that these roles characterize both leaders and managers, the definitions and responsibilities of leadership and management have merged into a single idea, resulting in a seamless continuity of duties. For instance, the circuit judge in the preceding section must possess leadership and management abilities to guarantee that their team members comprehend the mission and how to do it.
Even though leadership and management have been employed interchangeably in various contexts, they denote distinct functions within criminal justice organizations. The foundations of effective leadership are based on concepts that may motivate individuals to create a change. The foundation of management is the implementation of ideas that will result in fulfilling a vision. Management is concerned with implementing plans because they have established objectives and methods for quantifying and measuring them. Both notions are essential for the efficient operation of a criminal justice organization.
The sources’ credibility was established because they are published within peer-reviewed academic journals such as the International Journal of Public Administration, Procedia Engineering, and Public Management Review. These journals maintain their credibility via verification of the authors’ credentials, the uniqueness of the ideas demonstrated and their relevance to the published material. The online research on the authors demonstrates their qualifications as holders of doctoral degrees and publishment of various research materials. The articles are relevant because they are published within the last five years. Consequently, this creates enough evidence to determine these articles to be reliable and up to date.
Kapucu, N., & Ustun, Y. (2018). Collaborative crisis management and leadership in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(7), 548-561,
Liphadzi, M., Aigbavboa, C. O., & Thwala, W. D. (2017). A theoretical perspective on the difference between leadership and management. Procedia Engineering, 196, 478–482.
Torfing, J. (2018). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review, 21(1), 1–11.