Pen1332 1 Candidate number: Pen1332 Martin Davies Hommerton College Supervisor: Lucy Willmott Title: Assessing Management Leadership Traits in Probation Submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management Jan 2015
94
Embed
Title: Assessing Management Leadership Traits in … Davies.pdf · Pen1332 1 Candidate number: Pen1332 Martin Davies Hommerton College Supervisor: Lucy Willmott Title: Assessing Management
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Pen1332 1
Candidate number: Pen1332 Martin Davies Hommerton College Supervisor: Lucy Willmott
Title: Assessing Management Leadership Traits in Probation Submitted in part fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Applied Criminology, Penology and Management Jan 2015
Pen1332 2
Summary
The probation service in England and Wales has a long history of change, much of it driven by politics, but today, at the time of writing, probation is on the cusp of its biggest ever change. With much of the work now being placed into the private sector for the first time, leaders are having to drive forward unpopular change while somehow taking staff with them. This research therefore explores probation managers’ leadership traits, looking specifically at ‘Transformational’ and ‘Transactional’ traits using the Avolio and Bass (1995) multifactor leadership questionnaire to assess current traits in the public sector and assess the likely fit with the ‘new world’. The findings support existing research that probation is heavily influenced by a set of high moral values that steers its culture across all levels of management and, perhaps unsurprisingly, support the notion that probation leaders are significantly more likely to be ‘Transformational’ in their leadership style. Interestingly though, it does not appear to be the influence of gender, career, age or seniority that most influences the outcome, but whether managers were employed pre the last significant cultural change in 1997, when the probation service moved away from a mantra of ‘befriend, assist and support’, to an organisation whose priority is ‘public protection’ and ‘law enforcement’ that most impacts on the relevant strength of their ‘Transformational’, or ‘Transactional’ tendencies. Declarations I can confirm the thesis is not more than 18000 words (including notes, excluding any relevant appendices and the bibliography. I can confirm the thesis is not being used for any other purpose than the M.St. for which it is being submitted. I can confirm that, except as indicated by specific references to or acknowledgements of other sources, this thesis is my own work.
Pen1332 3
Acknowledgements I have several acknowledgements I wish to make to those who assisted me complete this thesis. The first is to the ‘class’ which expects to graduate in 2015. All were mutually supportive and together we ensured we were the best year that the Criminology department in Cambridge had ever seen! Specific gratitude should go to ‘Aunty Nell’ and her cake, which provided much-needed sustenance at crucial points. In addition to my colleague students I would like to thank course director Dr Ben Crew for his amazing patience, wit (occasional) and entertainment but, most of all, I wish to thank Dr Lucy Willmott, my supervisor who has been amazing!! Without her support and guidance I doubt this thesis would have ever been completed, and certainly not to anything like the quality you see before you. Thank you Lucy, you’re a star!
Pen1332 4
Contents
Page
Chapter 1 6 Introduction and Background 6 Probation 7 Summary and Aims 9 Research Questions 10 Chapter 2 12 Literature Review 12 Organisational Culture, Public, Private and Probation 12 Leadership styles: public-private, male-female and probation 20 Conclusion 26 Chapter 3 28 Research Design and Methods 28 Population 28 Table 3.1 The total number of staff both national and within the sample at each grade
30
Sampling 30 Research Tools 31 Method 35 Statistical Analysis 37 Ethical Issues 38 Chapter 4 40 Data Analyses and Results 40 Demographic Data 40 Table 4.1: Descriptive Statistics of Response rates compared with sample population
42
Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics of Responders demographics by Gender
43
Table 4.3: Descriptive Statistics of Gender and length of Service 44 Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics of Operational or Non Operational managers and length of Service
45
Graph 4.1: Frequency Graph of Primary Reasons for Joining Probation
46
Leadership Styles 47 Table 4.5: Descriptive Statistics of Line Managers MQL Scores in Two Probation areas
48
Graph 4.2: Numbers of Transformational, and Transactional line managers
49
Table 4.6: Results of Qualified and Non-Qualified Management Traits
50
Table 4.7: Results of Operational and Non-Operational Management Traits
51
Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics of Primary Reasons for Joining Probation and Management Traits Scores
52
Table 4.9: Frequency of High Transactional and Transformational Scores, and low Laissez Faire scores
53
Research Questions 54
Pen1332 5
Chapter 5 58 Discussion 58 Probation Leadership Traits 59 The Impact of Senior Managers Compared to Middle Managers 63 The Impact of Mawby and Worrall’s ‘‘Lifers’’ and their Management Traits
65
The impact of Mawby and Worrall’s ‘Second Careerist’ and their Management Traits
66
Impact of ‘Offender Managers’ and their Leadership Traits 68 Impact of Private versus Public Probation managers 69 Limitations 70 Future Research 72 Chapter 6 74 Conclusion 74 Bibliography 79 Appendix A Demographic Questions 84 Appendix B Sample MQL questions 85 Appendix C Participants consent sheet 86 Appendix D NOMs consent 87 Appendix E List of previous Careers 90 Appendix F Trait Frequency Scores 91
Pen1332 6
Chapter 1
Introduction and Background
“Sir Edmund Hillary of Mount Everest fame likes to tell a story about Captain
Scott’s earlier attempts, from 1901 to 1904, to reach the South Pole. Scott led an
expedition made up of men from the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy, as well as
a group of scientists. Scott had considerable trouble dealing with the merchant
marine personnel who were unaccustomed to the rigid discipline of Scott’s Royal
Navy. Scott wanted to send one seaman home because he would not take orders
but the seaman refused, arguing he signed a contract and knew his rights. Since
the seaman was not subject to Royal Naval disciplinary action Scott did not know
what to do. Then Ernest Shackleton, a Merchant Naval Officer in Scott’s party,
calmly informed the seaman that he, the seamen, was returning to Britain. Again
the seamen refused – and Shackleton knocked him to the ship’s deck. After another
refusal, followed by a second flooring, the seaman decided he would return home”
(Bass, 1990, 19)
This story encapsulates an interesting divergence of both ‘culture’ and ‘leadership’
between a public (in this case the Royal Navy) and private (merchant navy) sector
organisation. According to Schein (2010) ‘culture’ and ‘leadership’ are different yet
intrinsically linked. While the above ‘struggle’ dates back to the 1900’s, the tensions
between cultures (hieratical or democratic) and leadership styles (authoritative or
collaborative) still exist today, both in society as a whole and within organisations,
particularly at times of radical change (Bass, 1985: Burn, 1978). This study will
examine leadership styles within the English Probation Service at a time of significant
change.
Pen1332 7
Probation
The probation service in England is over 100 years old, with its roots going back as far
as 1876 when Frederick Rainer donated money to the church to intervene with the
treadmill of ‘offenders’ being sentenced to seven days’ custody for being drunk. With
the donation the church set up the police court missionaries who used their “own
religious convictions and inner strength, and fearlessly admonishing, [and] teaching”
(Osler, 1995, 15) to support offender change. This support was reinforced by the
Probation of Offenders Act 1907 which formalised probation and created the mantra ‘to
advise, assist and befriend’ in what at the time commanded support from all sides of
British politics at Westminster (Whitehead and Statham, 2006). Later in 1948, new
powers were given to courts to sentence to a range of probation orders and gave
probation officers increasing powers, still within the overall mantra of ‘advise, assist and
befriend’. This ‘humanistic’ element of probation continued with probation officers
becoming social workers in 1966, almost in an attempt to reinforce its origins (Osler,
1995).
Probation remained pretty static until the introduction of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act.
The Act sought to address what the Conservative Government of the day felt was an
organisational probation culture which no longer fitted the aspirations of government
or the public. In their view probation was ‘too soft’ and lacked what the Government
saw as the necessary ‘teeth’ to manage offenders effectively (Nellis, 2003; Osler, 1995).
This was presented publicly as probation being seen as a ‘failing service’ (Faulkner,
2001) and so the Act sought to reassure both politicians and the public by firmly moving
probation away from any leanings towards social work and instead morphing it into a
Pen1332 8
law enforcement agency with clear lines of accountability. These changes coincided
with a real government push to enshrine ‘New Public Management’ (NPM) ideology
within probation that had, to a large extent, avoided its influence until this point. What
NPM sought to achieve was “to make public sector organisations – and the people
working for them! – much more ‘businesslike’ and ‘market-orientated’, that is
performance, cost, efficiency and audit orientated” (Diefenbach, 2009, 893). Soon
afterwards, in 1997, the training moved sharply away from social work, university-led
training to an employer-led, practice-needs led training where trainees were employed
directly by probation areas (organised around court petty session areas and police
boundaries). With this in mind, performance frameworks appeared with targets for
every kind of measure. Those trained by the employer under the new arrangements
flourished within these new guidelines while those trained before largely resented them
(Mawby and Worrall, 2013; Phillips, 2011).
In May 2013 “Transforming Rehabilitation: A strategy for reform” (Ministry of Justice,
2013) was published. This signalled the end of a completely public-owned probation
service, with seventy percent of its work to be privatised. The existing thirty-five
probation trusts were to be replaced by one publicly-owned National Probation Service
(NPS) which would manage the highest risk of harm offenders1 and advise the courts
and twenty-one privately-run Community Rehabilitation Companies (CRCs), to manage
the bulk of offenders. The split occurred on the 1st June 2014, although the CRCs remain
in public ownership at the time of writing but are due to be ‘sold’ to their new owners in
February 2015. To achieve this split, non-operational staff2 were automatically assigned
1"‘serious harm’ is ‘a risk which is life threatening and/or traumatic and from which recovery, whether physical or psychological, can be expected to be difficult or impossible" (Ministry of Justice, 2009, 5) 2 those with no direct offender contact, such as finance, human resorces and IT officers
Pen1332 9
to the new CRCs, operational staff3 were given the option to choose a preferred
organisation, but where oversupply occurred staff would be chosen for the NPS on the
basis of those who managed the most high risk of serious harm cases on the 1st
November 2013. It was widely reported, that many staff felt aggrieved by the process
(Hughes, 1st July 2014; Travis 19th September 2013) given many indicated a preference
to remain in public service, rather than working for a private organisation.
Summary and aims
Given the imminent changes to probation, now is the perfect time to reflect on probation
further explores this core definition of culture as a “set of structures, routines, rules, and
norms that guide and constrain behaviour" (2004, 1) and is supported by the writings of
Potworowski and Green who reinforce the image claiming organisational culture is a
display of "social norms, rules, practises, myths, and heroes" (2012, 277). It is these
more ‘grounded’ definitions of culture that this research will seek to explore.
To further explore culture, first the typology of shared culture (Avolio & Bass, 1995;
Bass, 1985; Schein, 2010) will be examined. A very broad definition of such an
organisational culture could be ‘a collectively held (by all employees) vision of culture’.
In other words, managers and employees are singing in harmony, not just creating
Pen1332 13
noise, but music. When looked at in this way, it is easy to see the importance of
management traits because of the influence a manager can have in supporting or
fragmenting that 'culture', like the impact a conductor has over an orchestra. It is their
commitment, along with all other employees, to a common set of beliefs, values and
practices that together create and develop the organisation’s culture. "The outcome of
attempting a new practice can increase or decrease both one’s perception of the
practice’s effectiveness and beliefs in one’s own efficacy" (Potworowski & Green, 2012,
275).
This idea of a shared culture is developed further by Schein (2010), who encouraged
culture to be viewed as tacit with multi layers. The "So-called 'onion' models of culture
(Schein, 2010) generally place hidden assumptions at the centre of culture and the
effects of hidden assumptions radiate outward to the subsequent 'layers' of values, then
behaviours (or practices), and so on" (Potworowski & Green, 2012, 275). This was
explained by Schein (2010) as representing three levels of cultures: Artefacts, Espoused
Values and Basic underlying assumptions. Artefacts become symbolic of the
organisation, usually a visible association such as a branding, which provides clear
demarcation from that of others. Espoused Values are described as ‘taught values’
differing significantly from those values that underpin the culture of an organisation
that are referred to as 'Basic underlying assumptions'. These are so intrinsically meshed
into the organisation that there is no need to formalise or explicitly state openly (Schein,
2010).
While Schein (2004, 2010) primarily reviewed the ‘shared’ organisational culture,
Handy (1985) has been influential in describing the functionality of organisations. He
has argued that organisational cultures fall within four broad categories: Power, Task,
Role and Person. The culture of ‘power’ centres on a highly influential and charismatic
Pen1332 14
leader. This individual is able to show “empathy and personal communication” (Brown,
1998, 66) to invoke a sense of power and trust in their employees to ensure the
organisation’s effectiveness. This is seen as building a dynamic organisation, that is
'fleet of foot' and able to respond to change quickly, providing the leader is able to spot
and drive the necessary change. Organisations that appear to fit this model are Virgin,
with Richard Branson leading from the front, or Apple with Steve Jobs exemplifying the
model of trust and innovation. Although Handy himself did not try to popularise this
model, some have described it as ‘hero making’ or ‘macho’ (Parkin and Maddock, 1995).
This model’s effectiveness has recently been brought into question by large-scale
organisational failures, think Enron or Royal Bank of Scotland (Alimo-Metcalfe and
Alban-Metcalfe, 2008), which have largely been guided by the ideals of one man (sic). In
looking at it another way success or failure of one person dictates whether the
organisation as a whole succeeds or fails!
The second organisational type that Handy (1985) discusses is that of 'Task', historically
closely aligned to public bodies including probation, given its tendencies for
bureaucracy (see for example Lipsky 2010; Stevenson 2013). Policies and procedures
tend to be mapped out, with the aim of building consistency and accountability. The
drawbacks of such a culture are the speed at which it can respond to change, and its
corresponding 'ponderousness', although of course for "individuals who value security
and predictability these sorts of organisations are highly reassuring" (Brown, 1998, 67).
But as Lipsky (2010) highlighted, the methodology for accountability can frustrate
practitioners to levels that hamper the overall goal.
Handy's third type is the 'Role' culture which is closely aligned to a project
management- style of organisation and with similarities to that of 'Power', tends to
promote "flexibility, adaptability, [and] individual autonomy" (Brown, 1998, 69), but
Pen1332 15
clearly is susceptible to the same criticisms of reliance on one or few people being
successful, examples of this would include venture capitalists who buy businesses to
restructure them to sell on quickly for a profit. Finally Handy's 'Personal' culture
represents those who belong to a discreet profession that is limited to a few people with
unique skill sets identified to them, for example, doctors, or lawyers. Although Handy's
work does help to build an understanding of organisational types at a macro level, it
pays little attention to micro cultures that operate within an organisation. It also
virtually ignores the relationship between leader and follower, other than that in the
broadest sense of the Power model.
While Handy (1985) and Schien (2010) have sought to explain organisational culture
from an observational perspective that could be applied to any type of organisation,
public or private, Le Grand (2010) has sought to present an applied perspective. As
senior policy advisor to the Tony Blair Government he brings an insider’s perspective of
organisational culture for public services and includes the perception of Ministers,
senior policy advisors and senior civil servants. Within the model proposed by Le
Grand (2010) he suggests individuals and, ultimately,organisations as a whole are either
‘Knights’ or ‘Knaves’.
“Each contains assumptions concerning the motivation of the professionals and
others who provide the service concerned; that is, the extent to which they are
‘Knaves’, motivated primarily by self interest, or ‘Knights’, motivated by altruism
and the desire to provide public services” (Le Grand, 2010, 56).
Le Grand (2010) goes on to argue that those in government (or at least during his time
as advisor to government) do have an underlying belief that people working in the
public sector are “basically Knights; public spirited altruists committed to the welfare of
Pen1332 16
the people that they were being employed to serve”(Le Grand, 2010, 57). In other
words, government would simply be able to ‘Trust’ probation to get on with the goal in
hand, providing staff’s view of the ‘goal’ is the same as government’s. It is here there is
a potential problem, as for many probation workers the goal is still ‘befriend, assist and
advise’ where as the government wants them to deliver ‘public protection’ duties in a
more authoritarian manner. Given the goals of practitioners and government are not in
alignment, a model of ‘trust’ is unlikely to be successful. With this in mind, it must
discount the notion of ‘Knights’ and instead appeal to practitioner’s self-interest, or to
use Le Grand’s language ‘Knaves’ (2010).
The belief in ‘Knaves’ became increasingly popular by the Blair Government, given that
despite increased funding levels the ‘Knights’’ ideology failed to deliver the expected
performance improvements (Le Grand, 2010) across a broad range of public sectors
including probation.
“If policy was failing, that was because it did not serve the self -interest of the
people delivering the policy. New policies stalled, and good practice did not
spread, partly because they involved change; change was uncomfortable, thus
violating self-interest and making it unpopular” (Le Grand, 2010, 60).
This was certainly the perception the Blair Government had, referring to probation as a
“failed service” (Faulkner, 2001). To challenge a probation culture of high ‘ethical’
values and deeply held moral convictions (Gelsthorpe, 2007; Mawby and Worrall, 2010),
it was deemed that a new performance framework was needed, reminiscent of ‘New
Public Management’ (NPM), to steer probation to a more hardline approach.
Pen1332 17
NPM came straight from the ideology that the private sector knows best (Boyne, 2002:
Diefenbach, 2009). By adopting the techniques of successful business, such as
management objectives, measures for every session of process, clearly defined goals,
and total quality management (Boyne, 2002) it was expected to see improved
performance of the public sector and in a manner that allowed the government of the
day to define success. By removing the control of professionals opponents of NPM
would argue “work is steadily being colonised by management ideology and subject to
more rational modes of top down control and surveillance” (Diefenbach, 2009, 902).
Opponents of NPM would also argue that NPM fails to take account of the cultural
aspects of public sector organisations (Boyne, 2002; Diefenbach, 2009; Turkiewicz,
1998) and as a result staff become cynical and disillusioned with managers who “talk of
a shared organisational mission, commitment to quality and customer responsiveness
[that] flies in the face of their experience” (Diefenbach, 2009, 904).
Private organisations built around principles on which NPM is based are undeniably
successful based on their ultimate goal of profit (Farnham and Horton, 1996, cited in
Boyne, 2002). Think Shell, British Gas, BMW - the list is endless. One of the
fundamental differences in private organisational objectives is the desire to make profit.
Rarely does profit enter the public sector desire but it remains the key driver for almost
all business (Farnham and Horton, 1996, cited in Boyne, 2002). With this clear goal for
private business comes with it simple, distinctive and sharp strategic goals which cannot
be replicated in the public sector (Nutt and Backoff , 1993 cited in Boyne, 2002). What
this clearer objective achieves is to enable individuals in private organisations to
understand their role within the organisation better than their counterparts in the
public sector (Boyne, 2002).
While there is much research and literature on organisational culture as a whole, there
is very little research into probation culture, especially contemporary. The recent
Pen1332 18
qualitative research of Mawby and Worrall (2013) has explored this area interviewing
fifty-two current staff and eight recently retired probation workers to look at the
current culture of probation. In their research they looked to Schein’s (2010) three
level model of culture featuring basic underlying assumptions, espoused values and
artefacts by applying individuals’ espoused values to the culture of the Probation
Service. This resulted in findings that could fit probation workers into three distinct
categories, with the first being 'Lifers'. "For them probation was often regarded as being
a vocation, a lifelong commitment and their one main career" (Mawby & Worrall, 2013,
22). Many joined probation at an early stage in their working career and were well
educated. There are clear links to Le Grand’s (2010) ‘Knights’ and the language, although
different, has clear resonance. The inference is clear in that ‘Lifers’ would see
themselves modelled as ‘Knights’, and one quote within Mawby and Worralls work
articulates this best:
“My father was a consultant psychiatrist,….my mum a nurse and grandfather a
doctor, and a lot of clerics [in the family]. And I declared at the age of four I was
going to be Archbishop of Canterbury” (Unidentified ‘lifer’, in Mawby and Worrall,
2013, 21).
The second category identified by Mawby and Worrall (2013) was:
"the ‘Second Careerists’, [who] form a distinct group by virtue of having already
forged a career seemingly unrelated to probation or by spending a considerable
number of years in several jobs before joining probation" (2013, 26).
The history of previous jobs does not detract from the underlying values of the
individual or indeed of financial reward. “It [was] really poorly paid. But I thought it
Pen1332 19
[was] an opportunity to get involved and help make people change” (Unidentified
‘Second Careerist’, in Mawby and Worrall, 2013, 27). So although not as pictorially vivid
as that of the ‘lifer’ quote above, it remains clear that the ‘Knightly’ values identified by
Le Grand (2010) are just as present in ‘Second Careerist’, and lends further support to
Schein’s (2010) ‘basic underlying assumptions’, which in terms of probation can be seen
as a desire ‘to help people change’.
Finally, Mawby and Worrall (2013) identified the third group as being that of 'Offender
Managers' who "tend to be more recent recruits, principally those who joined the
Probation Service after 1997 and who experienced the trainee probation officer (TPO)
training framework that ran until 2010" (2013, 33). From the descriptions provided by
Mawby and Worrall it is less clear under which banner of Le Grand’s model ‘Offender
Managers’ would fall, although the TPO training referred to was based around a
performance-related framework with rewards (in terms of appraisals and outcomes)
and penalties for failures. This would imply that ‘Offender Managers’ at least would be
well positioned with that of ‘Knaves’ and are well accustomed to the performance
frameworks of NPM. However, what underpinned all three categories of probation
workers, according to Mawby and Worrall, was an underlining belief in rehabilitation,
decency and a sense that they were 'doing' the right thing, along with a strong desire to
reduce reoffending. In other words, they identified a clear set of values that can fit
Schein's (1985, 2010) theory on espoused values and basic underlying assumptions, and
also build on Le Grand’s ideal that they were “public spirited altruists committed to the
welfare of the people that they were being employed to serve”(Le Grand, 2010, 57).
To summarise, although there is only limited literature on probation culture, it is
possible to identify and begin to understand its culture. Schien (2010) talked of a core
belief at the centre of his onion model, which for probation would be the belief that
Pen1332 20
‘people can change’ (Gelthorpe, 2007; Le Grand, 2010; Mair, 2004; Mawby and Worrall,
2013; Nellis, 2003). Views on how this is best achieved may differ, with some
advocating a system of desistance (McNeil, 2012; Maurna, 2010) that builds on the idea
of ‘social bonds’, and others promoting the ‘What Works’ ideology (McGuire, 1995) of
cognitive teaching. This difference in ideology is a simple example of how the Schien
‘onion model’ can work in practice. The core belief remains that of ‘people can change’.
Out of this core belief become delivery models to achieve the outcome and the belief.
Interestingly as probation moves towards a mixed market of public and private it might
be expected to see the ‘artefacts’ of a culture (Schein, 2010), such as branding, diversify
to set the two apart. In this case however both the public service (NPS) and the private
service (CRC) are adopting near identical livery and signage in what appears to be an
almost deliberate attempt to blur the distinction between the two.
Leadership styles, public-private, male-female and probation
Having reviewed literature on organisational culture it is now appropriate to review the
literature on leadership traits and their influence on followers and therefore the
organisational culture as a whole, given that the traits of a manager can have either a
positive or destructive effect on the organisational culture (Burns, 1978).
Many theories on leadership traits are generalised to the leadership population as a
whole, but one that is specific to public sector leadership is that of
Van Wart (2004), whose ‘leadership framework’ can be applied to all levels of the public
sector. What this proposed is that leadership styles and traits could be categorised into
three distinct groups, ‘task-oriented’, ‘people-oriented’ or ‘organisation–oriented’.
Pen1332 21
For those identified as ‘task-oriented’ their “behaviours include those actions related to
monitoring and assessing work, operations planning, clarifying roles and objectives,
informing, delegating, problem-solving, and managing innovation and creativity “(Van
Wart, 2008, 192). Remembering these are now individual leadership traits, as opposed
to organisational cultures, we can see remarkable similarity to Handy’s (1985) cultural
model and in, perhaps unsurprisingly, his model of ‘Task’ cultures, in which the focus on
achieving an objective is paramount and exhaustive. Also by applying Schein’s (2010)
‘multi layer’ model, it is reasonable to assume that an organisation with a large degree of
‘task-oriented’ leaders is likely to create an organisation that is task-focused, because of
the taught values espoused by the leaders.
A ‘people-oriented’ approach is described as “consulting, planning and organising
personnel, developing staff, motivating, building and managing teams, managing
conflict, and managing personnel change” (Van Wart, 2008, 210). Interestingly, we see
close links to the ‘Knaves’ discussed by Le Grand (2010). The method employed by
‘people-oriented’ leaders is about developing a contract with individuals, ‘we’ll invest in
you, if you deliver xx’, so unlike the ‘Knights’ who deliver for ‘altruism’ (Le Grand, 2010),
here we see the ‘people-oriented’ leaders appealing to individuals’ self interest to enable
them to achieve for the organisation.
The third and final category of leadership style proposed by Van Wart (2008) is that of
‘organisation-oriented’ in which we see more visionary and forward thinking
leadership. Their style includes “scanning the environment, strategic planning,
articulating the mission and vision of the organisation, networking and partnering,
performing general management functions such as human resources and budgeting,
decision-making, and management of organisational change” (Van Wart, 2008, 234).
Again we can see clear linkage to the organisational cultures of Handy (1985) and the
Pen1332 22
‘Power’ culture, but in this model there are clear ‘Knight’-like tendencies (Le Grand,
2010). The ability to network, influence and shape others to perform in a manner that
serves as an advantage to the central organisation, is about inspiring others to belief,
adapt and champion the vision.
Van Wart’s (2008) work has helped to provide contextualisation for leadership traits
and behaviours, and it has been seen how these align with organisational cultures, but
what it does not do is provide a way of measuring those traits and behaviours. For this a
more detailed look at leadership traits is required. Burns (1978) differentiated between
'Transactional' and 'Transformational' leaders by describing 'Transactional' leaders as
process- driven, motivating by the use of a form of profit and loss evaluation for effort
versus outcome. This can be likened to Mawby and Worrall's (2013) 'Offender
Manager', at least in terms of process-driven attributes and a balance between risk and
cost. There are also very obvious parallels to Le Grand’s (2010) ‘Knaves’ because of the
contractual nature in which it is managed. 'Transformational' leaders on the other hand
are motivated through creating higher levels of arousal for change (Burns, 1978), so can
be seen as ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 2010) who appeal to individuals’ inner sense of
belonging and belief. This can also be likened to Mawby and Worrall's (2013) 'Lifers’
and ‘Second Careerists' who are committed to change through a strong value base. Zhu
et al (2011) describe leaders who adopt such a position "as being caring, compassionate,
fair, friendly, generous, helpful, hardworking and honest" (Zhu et al, 2011, 803). Again
these are values often associated with probation (Gelsthorpe, 2007; Knight, 2009; Nellis,
2003; Mawby and Worrall, 2013).
Pen1332 23
What Burns’ (1978) work failed to take full account of however, was the role of the
follower and the effect of the transaction between the leader and the follower. Bernard
Bass articulately intertwined the role subordinates play in leadership traits, stating that
the "Transactional leader induces performance amongst followers by negotiating an
exchange relationship with them of reward for compliance, ‘Transformational’
leadership arouses transcendental interests in followers and/or elevates their need and
aspiration levels" (Bass, 1985, 32). In other words, ‘Transactional’ leaders are ‘Knaves’
(Le Grand, 2010). This is not seen as a bad thing and the best ‘Transactional’ leaders are
those that master the art of “recognis[ing] what the subordinates need and want and
clarify how these needs and wants will be satisfied" (Bass, 1985, 12-13), but only after
“clarify[ing] the role and task requirements for the subordinates [to] reach the desired
outcome" (Bass, 1985, 12). In addition it is unlikely that a ‘Transactional’ leader would
question their organisation’s goals or priorities, instead trying to adapt and model their
own view to fit, thus taking the route of easiest resistance. The only time ‘Transactional’
leaders may provide resistance is if the organisational direction began to conflict with
the interest of the manager, for example if the current course of action was likely to
result in bankruptcy this would be resisted but only to protect the individual from loss
of job. Effectively what Bass (1985) was able to demonstrate was that 'Transactional'
leaders, although able to recognise what followers want and need, are unable to illicit
cultural change in the manner of 'Transformational' leaders who can change "the social
warp and woof of reality" (Bass, 1985, 24).
It is ‘Transformational’ leaders who are best able to elicit cultural change through
displays of high degrees of ethical leadership (Zhu et al, 2011). "Leaders are truly
’Transformational’ when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important, and
beautiful; when they help to elevate followers’ needs for achievement and self-
actualisation; when they foster in followers higher moral maturity" (Bass, 1998, 171). It
Pen1332 24
appears the ‘Knights’ (Le Grand, 210) have ridden forward again, and an emphasis on
trust is at the forefront of their behaviour and trait. This in turn ensures “they foster a
culture of creativity change and growth rather than one which maintains the status quo"
(Bass & Avolio, 1993, 113). These levels of change are only achieved by appealing to
followers, not in a manner of rewards, like ‘Transactional’ leaders or ‘Knaves’, but by
recognising the need for contingent reward in followers. In other words:
"Individualised consideration may concentrate on changing followers’ motives,
moving them to consider more than their self-interests but also the moral and
ethical implications of their actions and goals" (Avolio & Bass, 1995, 202).
Interestingly Mawby and Worrall (2013) highlighted the high levels of morals and
values running deep within probation’s veins and that on the whole staff trusted their
senior management, which according to Braun (2012) shows further evidence of
‘Transformationalism’, with “Transformational’ leaders who actively promote individual
followers’ progress and involvement signal their ability to lead as well as their
benevolence and integrity, and will therefore elicit higher levels of trust” (Braun, 2013
273).
What the debate about ‘Transformational’ or ‘Transactional’ leadership has shown us is
a clear linkage to the work of Handy’s (1985) 'Power' and 'Role' cultural types, visionary
versus stability, "working within the organisation culture as it exists [or] change[ing]
the organisation culture" (Bass, 1985, 24). Commentators have not sought to suggest
one trait is better than another, acknowledging different situations call for different
styles, although interestingly “managers who behave like ‘Transformational’ leaders are
more likely to be seen by their colleagues and employees as satisfying and effective
leaders than those who have ‘Transactional’ [traits]” (Bass, 1990, 21).
Pen1332 25
Although a popular leadership traits theory and model, ‘Transformational’ and
‘Transactional’ leadership are not without their critics, with the primary issue being that
around the over-reliance on ‘charisma’. Hogan et al (1990) talk of the ‘dark side of
charisma’ and while acknowledging certain strengths also talk about the ability of
‘charisma’ to act also as an alienator. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot were all arguably graced with
charisma but were deadly dangerous to those outside their ‘circle’. While it is unlikely
an organisational leader would have such power to inflict pain, they still have the ability
to make individuals’ lives uncomfortable and destroy teams and culture (Alban-Metcalfe
and Alimo-Metcalfe, 2013). A further criticism is that similar to the criticism of Handy’s
‘person’ culture and that of a ‘He-Man’ approach (Muir, 15th August 2014) or ‘Hero-
maker’ (Parkin and Maddock, 1995). The implication is that ‘masculine’ traits, such as
“displays a sense of power and confidence” (Avolio and Bass, 1009, 109) are strong
characteristics, although Burns (1978), Bass (1985), and Aviolio and Bass (1995) would
counter-argue this by referring to ‘Transformational’ traits as being caring, and
thoughtful, which are perhaps less stereotypical male traits.
The issue of gender is an important one when considering the impact on probation.
Although nearly 90% of offenders managed by probation are male, the organisation as a
whole is predominantly female, with over two-thirds of staff being female (Annison,
2007). Interestingly this is against a backdrop of increasingly hardline views against
public protection from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice (Annison, 2007) with
terms such as “confronting, challenging, enforcing, targeting. This is the language of
contact sports and war. It is male language and its objective is to impress, to impress
with demonstration of power’”(Cordery and Whitehead, 1992, 30). This is further
supported by Alban-Metcalfe and Alimo-Metcalfe (2007) who argue that the
characteristics of ‘Transformational’ leaders are male in bias.
Pen1332 26
Research surrounding different management traits between public and private sector
managers differs in its conclusions of differences between the two sets of managers.
Some have shown minimal differences (Boyne, 2002 and Kenny, 1987; Rainey, 1995)
while others have shown the private sector to have more directive styles (Baldwin, 1987
and Solmon, 1986) that could be considered more ‘Transactional’ in nature. Avolio and
Bass (1995) do not distinguish between public and private sector managers. However,
some have argued (Boyne, 2002; Solomon, 1986) that private sector managers are
better at understanding the needs of employees and translating them into ways in which
to motivate suggesting a higher ‘Transactional’ tendency. This would be further
supported by the work of Allison (1979, p462) who “claims that private management
proceeds much more by direction or the issuance of orders to subordinates by superior
managers with little risk of contradiction” (cited in Boyne, 2001, 101). While the
existing research is not conclusive between public and private differences, it does tend
to support private sectors being more ‘Transactional’ in nature than ‘Transformational’,
but this doesn’t necessarily mean the converse is true for the public sector.
To summarise, the existing research fails to give a clear indication of the leadership
traits you could expect to see in probation. An organisation, which is female-dominated,
firmly rooted in the public sector (currently) and displays a culture built on high moral
values. The culture of probation appears to cross over the results of previous research
and fails to identify easily with existing results. This only serves to make the outcome of
this research all the more interesting.
Conclusion
What this chapter has sought to do is highlight the main areas of theory and research
into organisational culture and how it is affected by leadership traits and how ultimately
Pen1332 27
they are intertwined. Schein's (1985, 2010) work on organisational culture shows how
a set of underlying values permeates throughout an organisation from a core belief.
Mawby and Worrall (2013) along with Gelthorpe, 2007; Mair, 2004; Nellis, 2003, have
all suggested the core belief in probation is that ‘people can change’, but reminiscent of
Schien’s (2010) ‘onion model’ ideology to achieve ‘success’ varies between ‘desistence’
(McNeil, 2012) and ‘What Works’ (McGuire, 2010) models but the underlying values
remain (Mawby and Worrall, 2013). What Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) research failed
to examine was the influence of management traits on this culture. This is an
unfortunate omission in their work given "ethical leaders communicate their ethical
standards and moral values to followers within their unit, as well as serve as their moral
role models" (Zhu et al, 2011, 804). In other words, the leaders should be the
embodiment of those ethics, and the guardian. When leaders fail to achieve this and "fail
to live up to and display high ethical standards, we see that group, organisation, and
even societies can become corrupt" (Zhu et al, 2011, 802). How a leader behaves, then,
will be critical to the future of probation during its time of significant change. Leaders
need to be able to deliver change while maintaining their ethical standards. What is
clear from the literature is that leadership traits in the private sector may not be too far
removed from those in the public sector, so the leap may not be as far as some (Knight,
2009) have suggested.
Pen1332 28
Chapter 3
Research Design and Methods
The study followed a quantitative research design, looking at the 'what' question
only: in this case, 'what' are the management traits of probation managers in
England. As a single method research design, self-completing electronic surveys
were sent to approximately seven-hundred (700) probation line managers, in
the form of a hyperlink to an on-line survey.
Although the previous chapter highlights some literature on probation culture
(most notably Mawby and Worrall, 2013; Gelsthorpe, 2007; Mair, 2004) little of
it, if any, relates directly to management traits. This study will therefore build
on the work of Burns (1978), who developed the idea of ‘Transactional’ and
‘Transformational’ leadership traits, by applying the tools developed by Avolio
and Bass (1995) to test individuals’ perceived management traits.
Population
At the time the research took place, the English National Probation Service (NPS)
had only recently been mobilised into six regions (North East, North West,
Midlands, South East, South West, and London)4. Each region is roughly
comparable with approximately 1800 staff comprising approximately one
hundred and twenty (120) line managers within the NPS. In addition, the
country has been split into twenty one (21) ‘Community Rehabilitation
Companies’ (CRC) which are due to be privatised in late 2014. CRCs vary in size,
4On the 1st June 2014 Probation Trusts were disbanded, with staff transferring into the National Probation Service, or a Community Rehabilitation Company. The survey took place in the first two weeks of July 2014, very soon after the ‘split’.
Pen1332 29
from approximately thirty (30) line managers to about one hundred and twenty
(120).
The survey targeted two NPS regions, the North East and the South West, and
encompassed both NPS line managers and line managers in the nine CRCs who
inhabit the same geographical boundaries as the NPS. In total this would equate
to approximately seven hundred (700) line managers, who were approached to
take part in the survey, representing approximately 30% of all line managers in
probation throughout England. Of these, approximately one-third will have been
allocated to the new 'public' sector probation, with the remaining two-thirds
being allocated to the 'private' sector.
There are six grades of line manager traditionally found in probation in England,
although each grade is not necessarily found in every part of the country. The most
senior grade is chief executive officer (CEO) for CRCs and deputy director (DD) in the
NPS. Each is accountable for all their employees, offenders, buildings and legal
requirements within a defined geographical area (usually coterminous with police and
local authority areas, or multiples thereof). The second most senior grade is that of
assistant chief officer, who along with the CEO or DD make up the ‘senior’ managers of a
chosen area or CRC. Beneath the senior management team is a set of middle managers
Band 6, or Band 5, with it usually being budget responsibilities separating the bandings
with Band 6s managing over £1m and Band 5s under £1m. Band 4s, and very
occasionally Band 3s, represent the more junior management grades and would
normally only line manage one to three staff. Other than CEOs or DDs, managers can be
either ‘operational’, directly managing offender or victim-related services, or ‘non-
operational’, where they manage corporate-style functions, for example finance,
performance, information technology or human resources. It was anticipated after the
Pen1332 30
split between into NPS and CRCs that the vast majority of ‘non-operational’ managers
would find themselves working in the CRC due to the ‘civil service’ machine being able
to absorb these functions for the NPS.
Table 3.1 The total number of staff both national and within the sample at each
grade
Definition Grade National
Numbers
Sample
Response
Actual
Numbers
(%)
Operational
Number
In sample
Non-
Operational
Number in
Sample
Senior
Managers
DD 6 2 (33%) 0 2
CEO 35 7 (20%) 0 7
ACO 234 41 (17.5%) 32 9
Middle
Managers
B6 130 25 (19.2%) 13 12
B5 1257 146 (11.6%) 115 31
B4 & 3 Unknown 20 8 12
Sampling
The sample was designed to enable comparisons between 'public' and 'private'
services. The regions are not 'neighbours' limiting the likelihood of cross-
cultural fertilisation, although it is acknowledged that managers may have
moved between regions, albeit unlikely. The survey targeted all grades of
manager from middle managers to senior managers, including chief executives
or equivalent, and has therefore allowed comparisons between senior and all
Pen1332 31
other managers. It was decided to include all grades of manager to reflect their
role in defining organisational culture (Avolio & Bass, 1991; Bass, 1985; Schein,
1985) and build the knowledge of leadership culture by examining the traits in
Mawby and Worrall's (2013) theory that probation staff fall into three general
categories, ‘Lifers’, ‘Second Careerists’ or ‘Offender Managers’. In addition to
examining the impact of what some research has suggested as being the
‘feminisation’ of probation (Annison, 2007; and Mawby and Worrall, 2013) the
survey included amongst its demographic questions that of gender, age, length
of service, whether a qualified probation officer, etc. These demographic
questions have been asked to enable respondents to be 'matched' to Mawby and
Worrall's (2013) three categories of probation staff.: ‘Lifers’ have been identified
as those who have not had a previous career and identified this their chosen
career because of an alignment of values between probation and that of the
individual’s ethics; ‘Second Careerists’ are those for whom probation is not their
first career; and ‘Offender Managers’ were identified as being a qualified
probation officer who trained after 1997 when the new diploma in probation
became the standard training mechanism. It is possible that ‘Offender Managers’
may overlap into either of the other categories. Overall the sample was selected
to ensure good generalisation (Bachman and Schutt, 2011) of all probation
managers throughout England.
Research Tool
Recognising that no one type of research design is perfect, consideration was
given to the most appropriate research tool to complete this study. One option
considered was that of a semi-structured qualitative interview design, as it was
recognised that such a methodology would provide scope for the exploration of
wider issues, including individuals’ traits, but it was ultimately rejected, partly
Pen1332 32
due to the need to engage with large volumes to ensure generalisation of
probation managers (Bachman and Schutt, 2011) and the time implications
associated with this, but also because of concerns about reliability. Using a
survey that has been previously tested with strong reliability (Cohen, 1988),
provides additional confidence. This is particularly important when considering
replication in the future, which this research would advocate, to see if, over time,
management traits change following privatisation.
After rejecting the idea of a semi-structured interview, consideration was given
to a participant self-completing survey. The first consideration given to this
methodology was whether there would be a bias in results from self-responders
(Robinson, 2011). Although a possibility, the researcher expected to get
sufficient response to minimise any impact of bias. In addition to the issue of
bias in the sample group willing to complete the survey voluntarily, self-
completing surveys also rely on internal (to the completer) interpretation and
motivation to complete the survey (Robinson, 2011). In this particular study it
was anticipated that these would be minimised for three primary reasons. First,
the sample group is educated and literate, coupled with the intent of the study to
be about how the individual sees their own behaviour and beliefs; the second,
although optional participation for managers previous research (Mawby and
Worrall, 2013) demonstrated that staff wanted people to take more interest and
therefore supported such research; and third, because senior line managers and
NOMs Ethics were endorsing the research and providing work time to managers
to complete the survey. It should however be clearly acknowledged, that
although the timing of the survey was ideal in that it sought to seek differences
between private and public sector probation at the early stage of their inception,
for staff the timing was very challenging due to huge conflicting demands on
Pen1332 33
their time. This was the largest organisational structure change in probation’s
one hundred plus years and this was never going to be achieved without a
degree of stress and pressures across the service. It is therefore highly likely
that participation was lower than might normally have been expected, especially
as, according to media reports, morale was at its lowest-ever point throughout
probation (Hughes, The Guardian, 1st July 2014). In addition to the timing of
the survey, reflection should be given to the differences between qualitative and
quantitative research and participant outcomes. Although Mawby and Worrall
(2013) found that people wanted to be involved in research about themselves,
and supported further work, their research was qualitative in nature, a style
which naturally fits with probation workers’ delivery style, and therefore
naturally appealing, this does not necessarily relate to a quantitative design such
as this study.
The survey that participants were asked to complete was an amalgamation of an
established leadership traits questionnaire referred to as the 'MultiFactor
Leadership Questionnaire' (MLQ) designed by Avolio and Bass (1995) and
additional demographic-type questions such as age, length of time working in
probation, grade of manager and, crucially, whether they are working for the
'public' or 'private' sector probation. A full list of the demographic questions can
be seen in Appendix A, although only a sample of MLQ questions are inserted
due to compliance with copyright (Appendix B). All the questions asked are
either 'categorical' such as gender (male or female) or 'ordinal' such as the MLQ
questions which use the Likert scale of 0 – 4, with zero representing ‘not at all’,
and four representing ‘frequently , if not always’.
Pen1332 34
The MLQ has been chosen for its tested reliabilities which for the "total items
and for each leadership factor scale ranged from .74 to .94" (Bass and Avolio,
2004, 49) using a Pearson's correlation co-efficiency rating. This demonstrates a
high correlation according to Cohen (1988) who described anything above 0.5 as
being high or very high. The questionnaire evaluates six main management
‘values’ are central to probation, and this research supports that notion with 48% of
responders claiming they joined probation for reasons of an alignment of values and
beliefs. Unfortunately the research did not explore this issue further with respondents
to see if the views around ‘values’ changed over time working within probation, but the
high presence of values goes some way to supporting the findings that probation leaders
are predominantly ‘Transformational’ given Bass (1995) identified values as a key
component of ‘Transformational’ leaders.
While ‘values’ are of undeniable importance to ‘Transformational’ leaders it should not
be assumed this is the only factor. Interestingly when the research looked at the
differences in leadership traits between senior and middle managers, a significant
difference was found in favour of senior managers being more ‘Transformational’ in
nature. While tempting to attribute this directly to values, other notable differences
exist. Senior managers almost exclusively joined probation pre-1997 (with some
notable exceptions) meaning they trained and experienced a probation service that was
very different to today’s, instead of being a law enforcement agency with an imposed (by
government) value set of ‘public protection’, they come from an era of ‘advise, assist and
Pen1332 76
befriend’. Senior managers have therefore largely had to navigate their way through an
organisation with changing values (Morgan 1997) and have learnt to transcend their
beliefs and values by framing the core belief ‘ people can change’ (Gelsthorp 2007;
Knight 2009; Mawby and Worrall 2013) and holding these sacred in the new world.
Middle managers on the other hand are less likely to have been employed by probation
through this period of transition, many in fact commencing their careers in the world of
accountability and ‘new public management’ ideology which framed people’s ideas and
working careers somewhat differently, identifying process which, if followed, allegedly
produce the required outcome. In other words it is a transaction.
When referring to Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) classifications for probation managers,
it was interesting to see that actually whether someone was a ‘Lifer’ or a ‘Second
Careerist’ made little difference to their management style, with both being
‘Transformational’ in nature. Again at first glance it could be easy to suggest therefore
that previous careers make little difference on how someone leads in probation, but on
closer examination it was found that actually many ‘Second Careerists’’ previous careers
were in fact careers in which we find the same or similar moral values, such as social
workers (Nellis and Chui, 2003) or voluntary and charity sector workers (Rainey, 2005),
suggesting that perhaps individuals are generally attracted to careers that align with
their values rather than specific roles.
For Mawby and Worrall’s (2013) classification of an ‘Offender Manager’, a subtle
difference in outcome was found. Like ‘Lifer’ and ‘Second Careerist’ the dominant trait
was ‘Transformational’,but, unlike the other two classifications, ‘Offender Managers’ had
a noticeably stronger tendency towards ‘Transactional’ attributes. Although these were
not significantly different it does appear to fit with the new training and process-driven
environment that these employees have grown within. It suggests Le Grand’s (2010)
Pen1332 77
ideology that public servants are in fact ‘Knaves’ (seeking personal gain or reward) not
‘Knights’ (acting entirely in a manner of altruism), and with the correct levers change
can be controlled to achieve government’s (or indeed management’s) aims.
Perhaps the most significant finding within this research was that those staff moving
into the privatised probation service were significantly more likely to be
‘Transformational’ in nature than their colleagues who were remaining in the public
sector. Differences in role type, gender and length of service all failed to explain this
outcome when evaluated, leaving the researcher to look to other factors to explain this
difference. Baldwin (1987) claims that the perception of private business is one of
vigour, excitement and inspiration. All of which sit more comfortably with
‘Transformational’ attributes than the process of ‘Transactional’ ideology. Indeed, the
privatising of probation was sold to staff on the basis of less bureaucracy (MoJ, 2013),
leaving the researcher to suggest that many staff who promote ‘Transformational’
attributes positioned themselves towards the private community rehabilitation
companies (CRC). Clearly only time will tell whether the new CRCs are able to operate
within the arena of excitement suggested by government, and believed by staff, but the
signs are ominous as Boyne (2002), Kenny (1987), and Rainey (1995) have all
concluded that actually, other than the goal of profit, there is very little difference
between public and private organisational cultures and, as such, management traits
between the two are remarkably similar.
The timing of this research was interesting in that it sought to provide a snapshot of
management traits right at the time the organisation was splitting into a public/private
hybrid. By doing so, this research is able to be used as a comparator for future studies
into probation management traits once the new organisations have become embedded
Pen1332 78
and therefore provide clearer evidence of the impact of ‘private’ philosophy on
management traits and values.
Pen1332 79
Bibliography Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B (2007) ‘Development of a private sector version of the (engaging) Transformational Leadership Questionnaire’, Leadership and Organisational Devlopment Journal, Vol 28 No 2, 104-121 Alban-Metcalfe, J. and Alimo-Metcalfe, B (2013) Reliability and validity of the "leadership competencies and engaging leadership scale" in The International Journal of public Sector Management, 26.1, 56-73 Alimo-Metcalfe, B. and Alban-Metcalfe, J. (2008) Engaging Leadership: Creating Organisations that Maximise the Potential of their People, Chartered Institute for Personnel Development, London Annison, J. (2007) A gendered review of change within the probation service. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 2:145-61 Antonakis, J. Day, D. and Schyns, B. (2012) Leadership and individual differences: At the cusp of a renaissance, Leadership Quarterly, 23, 643-650 Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B, M (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership quarterly, 6(2) 199-218 Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M (1995) Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Mind Garden, www.mindgarden.com Avolio, B. J. and Bass, B. M (2004)Multifactor Leadership Questionnair 3rd Ed Manual and Sample Set, Mind Garden, www.mindgarden.com Bachman, R., and Schutt, R.K., (2011) The practice of research in criminology and criminal Justice. London, Sage Baldwin, N. (1987) Public versus private: not that different, not that consequential. Public personal management. 16, 181 - 193 Bandura, A. (1991) Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol 50(2), Dec 1991, 248-287. Bass, B.M., (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers Bass, B.M. (1990) From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, Vol 18, Issue 3, 19-31 Bass, B.M., (1998) The ethics of transformational leadership. In J. Ciulla (ed) ethics, the heart of leadership (169-192). Westport, CT: Praeger Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1993) Transformational leadership and organisational culture. Public Administration Quarterly, 17, 112-122 Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J., (2004) Mutli-factor Leadership Questionnaire Manual (3rd Ed), Mindgarden
Blaikie, N., (2003) Analysing Quantitative Data, London, Sage Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. and Dennison, P. (2003), “A review of leadership theory and competency frameworks”, Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre, Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter, Exeter, Boyne, G (2002) Public and Private Management: Whats the Difference: in Journal of Management Studies, 39:1, 97- 123 Braun, S. Peus, C. Weisweiler, S. Frey, D. (2013) Transformational Leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly 24, 270-283 Burke, L and Collett, S (2010) People are not things: What New Labour has done to Probation. Probation Journal 57 Brown, A D (1998) Exploring Organisational Culture, in Brown, A D (1998) Organisational Culture (2nd Ed), London, Pitman Burns, J.M. (1978) leadership. New York: Harper and Row Cohen, J. (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (2nd Ed). Hikksdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Cordery, J. and Whitehead, A (1992) ‘Boys’ don’t cry’: empathy, warmth, collusion and crime, in Senior, P and Woodhills (Eds) Gender, Crime and Probation Practise, Sheffield: Pavic Densten, I. (2003) Senior police leadership: does rank matter?. Policing : an international journal of police strategies & management, Vol 26, issue 3, 400-418 Diefenbach, T. (2009) New Public Management in public sector organisations: the dark sides of managerialistic enlightenment. In Public Administration, Vol 87, No 4, 892-909 Dingwall, R and Strangleman, T (2007) Organisational Cultures in the Public Services. In Ferlie, E, Lynn, L and Pollitt, C (2007) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford, OUP Faulkner, D (2001) Crime, State, and Citizen:A field full of folk, 2nd Ed. Winchester, Waterside Press Gelsthorpe, L (2007) Probation values and human rights, in Gelsthorpe, L & Morgan, R (2007) The Handbook of Probation, Cullompton, Willan Handy C.B. (1985) Understanding Organizations, 4th edn. Facts on File Publications, London, Penguin Hart, J (2012) Senior Leadership styles and Traits in the Metropolitian Police, MA Cambridge, unpublished Hirschman, A. O. (1970) Exit, voice and loyalty: responses to decline in firms, organisations and states. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass
Pen1332 81
Hogan, R.J., Raskin, R. and Fazzini, D. (1990), “The dark side of charisma”, in Clark, K.E. and Clark, M.B. (Eds), Measures of Leadership, Leadership Library of America, West Orange, NJ, pp. 343-54. Hughes, J (1st July, 2014) I've quit the probation service over the government's ill thought-out reforms. The Guardian on-line http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jul/01/quit-probation-service-ill-thought-out-reform-chris-grayling Kenny, G. (1987) Strategic decision making: influence patterns in public and private sector organizations. Human Resources, 40, 613-63 Knight, J. (2009) Speaking up for Probation, in The Howard League Journal, Vol 48, No 4, 327-343 Layder, D. (1998) Understanding Social Theory. London, Sage Le Grand, J. (2010) Knights and Knaves Return: Public Service Motivation and the Delivery of Public Services. International Public Management Journal. 13.1 Lipsky, M., (2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy. New York, Sage Lyons, S. Duxbury, L. Higgins, C. (2006) A Comparison of the Values and Commitment of Private Sector, Public Sector and Parapublic Sector Employees. Public Administration review, July/August 2006, 605-618 McGuire, J (1995) What Works: Reducing Reoffending, New York, Chichester McNeill, F. Farrell, S. Lightowler, C and Maruna, S (2012) Reexamining evidence based practice in community corrections: Beyond 'a confined view' of what works, Justice Research and Policy, Vol 14, 1 Maruna, S and LeBel, T (2010)The desistance paradigm in correctional practise: from programmes to lives, in McNeill, F. Raynor, P and Trotter, C (eds) (2010) Offender supervision : new directions in theory, research and practice, Collompton, Willian Publishing Mawby, R. C., & Worrall, A., (2013) Doing probation work: identity in. A criminal justice occupation. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon; New York Mair, G. (2004) what matters in probation. Cullompton; Portland, Or: Willan Pub. Morgan, R (2007) Probation, Governance and Accountability, in Gelsthorpe, L & Morgan, R (2007) The Handbook of Probation, Cullompton, Willan
Millar, M. and Burke, L. (2012) Thinking Beyond ‘Utility’: Some Comments on Probation Practice and Training. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol 51. Number 3, 317-330 Ministry of Justice (2009) Public Protection Manual, version 4. Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice (May 2013) Transformation Rehabiliation: A strategy for reform
NOMs (2014a) Probation Service Workforce Information Summary Report Quarter 4 2013/14 Nellis, M. and Chui, W. (2003) The end of Probation, in: Chui, W. and Nellis, M. (Eds) Moving Probation Forward: Evidence, Argument and Practise, Harlow: Pearson Osler, A (1995) Introduction to the Probation Service, Winchester, Waterside Press Parkin, D. and Maddock, S. (1995) ‘A gender typology of organizational culture’, in: Itzin, C. and Newman, J (Eds), Gender, Culture and Orgnaisational Change: Putting Theory into practice, London, Routledge Phillips, J. (2011) Target, audit and risk assessment cultures in the probation service, in; European Journal of Probation, Vol 3, No 3, University of Bucharest Potworowski, G.A. and Green, L. A. (2012) Culture and Evidence-Based Management, in: Rousseau, D M (2012) The Oxford Book of Evidence-Based Management, Oxford, OUP Rainey, H (1995) Public and Private managers perceptions of red tape. Public administration review, 55, 567-574 Rea, L.M. and Parker, R.A. (2005) Designing and conducting Survey Research a comprehensive guide (3rd Ed) San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Robinson, C., (2011) Real World Research, second Edn. Chichester, Willey Shaw, D (2014) Hundreds of probation officers appeal against new jobs, on BBC news online 18th February, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26231132 Shein, E H (2010) Organisational culture and leadership (fourth edition) San Fransisco, Jossey-Bass Silvia, C and McGuire, M. (2010) Leading public sector networks: An empirical examination of integrative leadership behaviours. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 264-277 Solomon, E. (1986) Private and public sector managers: an empirical investigation of job characteristics and organisational climate’ Journal of applied psychology, 71, 247-259 Straw, C (2014) Transforming rehabilitation: occupational cultures and leadership amongst chief executives in Probation in preparing for the planned restructuring of the service, MA Cambridge, Unpublished Stevenson, A. (2013) The Public Sector; Managing the Unmanageable, London, Kogan Page Travis, A (2011) Probation officers spend 75% of time not dealing with offenders, report finds, in The Gardian Newspaper, Wednesday 27th July, 2011) Travis, A (2013) Probation staff to stage walkout over privatisation, in the Guardian Online, 19th September 2013 Turkiewicz, C. Massey, T and Brown, R. (1998) Motivation in Public and private Organisations: A comparative Study in Public Productivity and Management Review, Vol 21, No 3, pp 230-250
Pen1332 83
Van Wart, M. (2008). Leadership in public organizations: An introduction. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe. Whitehead, P. and Statham, R. (2006) The History of Probation, Crayford, Shaw and Sons Ltd Zeffance, R. (1994) Patterns of orgnaisational commitment and perceived management styles: A comparison of public and private sector Employees, in Human Relations, Vol 47, No 8, 977-1010 Zhu, W., Avolio, B.J., Riggio, R.E and Sosik, J.J (2011) The effect of authentic transformational leadership on the follower and group ethics. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 801-817
Pen1332 84
APPENDIX A
Demographic questions
1. Are you – Male or Female 2. Which age category do you fall: 16-21, 22-35, 36-50, 51+ 3. Following the Transformational Rehabilitation changes do you work for:
CRC or NPS 4. Which region do you work in: North East or South West 5. What is your current grade: Deputy Director or CEO, ACO, Band 6, Band 5,
Band 4 or Band 3 6. Would you describe your team as: Operational or Non-Operational 7. Which year did you join probation 8. Are you a qualified probation officer: Yes, No 9. Was probation your first career: Yes, No 10. if No to previous question please give details of previous career 11. What was main reason for joining probation? Value Base, Finance
reasons, Career, or Other
Pen1332 85
APPENDIX B
Sample Questions from Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Avolio and Bass, 1995)
1. I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
2. I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are
appropriate
3. I fail to interfere until problems become serious
4. I focus attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and deviations
from standards
5. I avoid getting involved when important issues arise.
NB: limited to 5 questions due to Copyright instructions
Pen1332 86
APPENDIX C
SURVEY INFORMATION SHEET
The information below tells you about the study that we are inviting you to be involved in. Please
ask any questions you want about the research, and we will try our best to answer them.
Who am I? I’m currently the CEO of the Humberside, Lincolnshire, and North Yorkshire CRC. I’m
completing a Masters in Criminology and Management with the Institute of Criminology, University
of Cambridge.
What is this study about? I’m analysing management traits between managers in the NPS and
managers in the CRC in England. By completing a standard management traits questionnaire and
certain demographic questions, I intend to establish whether managers are either ‘Transactional’
or ‘Transformational’ in style.
What will participation involve? Participation will involve filling in an on-line survey. This should
take around fifteen minutes.
Do I have to take part in the study? Your participation is completely voluntary. If you do not want to
take part, you do not have to, and this will not count against you in any way.
Will what I say be kept confidential? The information you share in the survey will be kept
COMPLETELY CONFIDENTIAL and not identifiable to you as an individual. The outcomes of all
the surveys completed will be aggregated and analysed as a whole.
How do I agree to take part in the study? By completing the survey, you are agreeing to take part,
and confirming that you understand what the study involves.
What if I want to withdraw from the study? Given the nature of the survey is non-identifiable to
individuals, once you have completed and submitted the survey it is not possible to withdraw. If
during the completion of the survey you wish to withdraw, simply close down the survey without
submitting.
What will happen to the results of the study? Your survey will contribute to my thesis for my
Masters and may result in publications on similar topics. These will mainly be academic articles
and books. The findings may also be discussed in other academic publications written by the
researchers, and in discussions or presentations with members of the Probation Service or the
National Offender Management Service (NOMS), and other university researchers. Again, this will
be done in such a way that you will not be personally be identified.
Pen1332 87
The study has been reviewed by the National Offender Management Service Ethics Committee,
but if you want further information about its ethics, or if you want to complain about some aspect of
the research, you should write initially to myself.
Thank you for your time in reading this information. If you have any further questions at any stage
of the research, please do not hesitate to ask one of us.
Martin Davies
Pen1332 88
APPENDIX D
NOMs Consent
APPROVED SUBJECT TO MODIFICATIONS – NOMS RESEARCH
Ref: Cambridge MSt applications Titles: (2014-168) Assessing management leadership traits in Probation, using a multi-facet questionnaire
Dear Ben, The National Research Committee (NRC) is pleased to grant approval in principle for the research applications listed above. For each of these applications, the Committee requests that the applicants consider the following:
If the intention is to conduct research in the prison establishment/NPS division/CRC area which is also the applicant’s usual place of work, the potential for any conflict from the dual researcher/practitioner role should be considered (e.g. impact upon responses) and mitigated wherever possible.
The resource demands upon establishments/NPS divisions/CRC areas (and also data providers) should be fully recognised and minimised where possible.
Bearing in mind that all applicants are conducting the research projects as Cambridge MSt students, the initial approaches to offenders need to be made by appropriately placed practitioners (to verify their willingness to be contacted).
When using intermediaries to assist with recruitment and administration, consideration should be given to the necessary quality assurance, helping to ensure consistency and adherence to agreed criteria/processes.
The following should be considered in terms of sampling and sample sizes: o To identify eligible respondents, clear inclusion and exclusion criteria
should be established for all target groups. o When sampling offenders, consideration should be given to the need
for a minimum level of exposure to the interventions/services covered by the research (to ensure that sufficiently informed opinions can be provided).
o For qualitative research, consideration should be given to the need for stratification when sampling to ensure that a sufficient range of views is obtained. Sample sizes should be linked to the point at which saturation of key themes is achieved.
o For quantitative research, it should be verified that the proposed sample sizes are likely to be sufficient for the statistical analysis intended.
o For any surveys, response rates should be monitored and plans established to address low response rates where necessary.
The following should be included in the participation information sheets/consent forms: o Participants should be informed of the time commitment involved. o Participants should be informed how the data will be used and for
how long it will be held. o Participants should be informed that there will be neither advantage
nor disadvantage as a result of their decision to participate or not participate in the research.
o It must be made clear to research participants that they can refuse to answer individual questions or withdraw from the research at any point, and that this will not compromise them in any way.
o Participants should be asked for their consent to the use of audio-recording equipment.
o Participants should consent to any follow-up contact and the method of this contact.
The following should also be included in the participation information sheets/consent forms for offenders: o Access to any NOMS records for the participants should be explicitly
covered. o It needs to be clear that the following information has to be disclosed:
behaviour that is against prison rules and can be adjudicated against, illegal acts, and behaviour that is potentially harmful to the research participant (e.g. intention to self-harm or complete suicide) or others.
o Potential avenues of support should be specified for those who are caused any distress or anxiety.
o The respondent should be asked to direct any requests for information, complaints and queries through their prison establishment/probation trust. Direct contact details should not be provided.
If any individuals are being approached due to their very specific roles, particular attention should be given to ensuring their anonymity. If anonymity cannot be guaranteed, respondents will need to be fully informed about this prior to providing their consent.
Wherever possible, interview/questionnaire schedules should be tested/piloted in the first instance to check understanding, overall length and coverage of key issues. The appropriateness of the questions to the specific respondent groups should be considered (particularly if using any instruments that have not been previously validated for use with offenders).
Pen1332 90
Researchers must store and handle all personal data securely in line with AI 03/2009 and PSO 9015 Information Assurance and PSO 9010 I.T. Security. This includes data required to identify respondents and to link data sources.
When using recording devices, the recordings should be treated as potentially disclosive and it is recommended that devices with encryption technology are used. Recordings should be wiped once they have been transcribed and anonymised unless there are clear grounds for keeping them any longer.
In the research reports, care should be taken to not overstate the potential benefits of the research and the research limitations should be explicitly set out (e.g. samples are not necessarily representative of all those eligible to be included, the findings may not translate to other establishments/areas, lack of any long-term follow-up).
Before the research can commence applicants must agree formally by email to the NRC ([email protected]), confirming that consideration will be given to the points set out above and that they will comply with the terms and conditions outlined below and the expectations set out in the NOMS Research Instruction (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/national-offender-management-service/about/research). Applicants should also inform the NRC if they have any intention to publish any of their findings. Please note that unless the project is commissioned by MoJ/NOMS and signed off by Ministers, the decision to grant access to prison establishments, National Probation Service (NPS) divisions or Community Rehabilitation Company (CRC) areas (and the offenders and practitioners within these establishments/divisions/areas) ultimately lies with the Governing Governor/Director of the establishment or the Deputy Director/Chief Executive of the NPS division/CRC area concerned. If establishments/NPS divisions/CRC areas are to be approached as part of the research, a copy of this letter must be attached to the request to prove that the NRC has approved the study in principle. The decision to grant access to existing data lies with the Information Asset Owners (IAOs) for each data source and the researchers should abide by the data sharing conditions stipulated by each IAO. Please quote your NRC reference number in all future correspondence. Yours sincerely, National Research Committee