Call/WhatsApp: +1 914 416 5343

The Major Roles of Police Executives Using the Mintzberg Model of CEOs

The Mintzberg model for CEO was created by Henry Mintzberg, where he identified three distinct primary roles of police chief executive officers (CEOs) (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2015). Based on Mintzberg’s model, the three primary roles include interpersonal, informational, and decision-making roles of police executives is analyzed.

Interpersonal Roles

These are the life skills or social skills CEO in police administration need to possess for smooth interaction with others on a daily basis. This role generally involves police CEO performing duties such as listening, providing leadership, persuading, delegating just to mention. The role has three components: the figure head; where the CEO executes ceremonial roles, leadership; which involves coordinating workers towards achieving a common goal, and liason, which involves interacting with other organizations and facilitating assignment (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2015).

Informational role

Informational roles includes three major duties which include dissemination of information, monitoring and inspections, and acting as a spokesperson (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2015). Monitoring and inspection role requites the CEOs to ensuring the smooth running of operations in the departments while dissemination requires police CEOs to release information on changes in order or other operational procedures.  As a spokesperson, the chief officer is tasked with representing the image of their department and the entire agency to the media and the general public (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2015).

Decision making

Police CEOs are also tasked with making regular administrative decisions to serve the public better. Police CEOs are not in the field per se yet they frequently make decisions such as whether or not to charge arrested individuals (Peak & Giacomazzi, 2015). The decisions they make may not necessarily be life-threatening decision, but rather ordinary decisions such as deciding on budget prioritization and defend such choices, resolving disputes among staff members, just to mention.

Two (2) Legislative Enactments that are in Place to help Combat Terrorism

Among the legislations to curb terrorism include Presidential Policy Directive Requirements of the National Defence Authorization Act (NDAA). This piece of legislation was passed by the US congress under the Obama administration in 2012 (Presidential Policy Directive (PDA), 2012).  The main reason for enacting the NDAA was to empower the US military in the war on terror. The executive branch of the defence forces was particularly empowered to make use of national power such as the military, economic tools, intelligence, and law enforcement in effectively combating Al-Qaida and its allies (PDA, 2012). In addition, the legislation authorised detention by the military individuals suspected of committing or abetting acts of terror, including American citizens (PDA, 2012).  In my opinion, this legislation was not very effective in combating terrorism since it did not have the support of majority of the citizens. Rather that protecting the citizenry, the legislation has provisions that infringed on the rights of American citizens since it had loopholes that could be exploited hence opening floodgates of trial-free and indefinite detentions, as well as defying the all-time presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Another piece of legislation that was enacted to combat terrorism is the executive order 13224 Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions with Persons who Commit, Threaten to Commit, or Support Terrorism. This directive was issued by President Bush in 2001 and empowered the US government, through provision of necessary tools, to impede all funding linked to terror suspect or terrorism activities (Crimm, 2003). The legislation was part of the country’s commitment in leading the world in destroying financial muscles of terror groups and individuals. The enactment thus saw the fortification of terrorism laws since the financial was on terror was aimed at depriving terrorist their much needed finances to commit terror (Crimm, 2003). This executive order, in my opinion, was effective in instituting sanctions to terror groups hence limiting their terror activities. It also provide the US government with a strong arsenal through which both the government and even the citizens could pursue criminal and economic sanctions against the terrorists themselves and those sponsoring them.

Problems related to determining the actual numbers of hate crimes and what makes hate crimes different from other crimes.

Most cases of hate crimes in FBI statistics are grossly underreported since the reports are on a voluntary basis, hence problem in determining the actual number. Certain jurisdictions in the US do not also report hate crimes and send in zero hate crimes, something that is bogus and unrealistic. (OSCE, 2009).Policy and reporting gaps also exist, where there are no policies and formal police procedures in the reporting of such crimes (Middlebrook, 2017).There is also lack of training for police officers and other relevant agencies in identifying and collecting information on hate crimes, further making the numbers inaccurate. In addition, some victims do not report hate crimes for fear of repercussions, hence such crimes go unreported (Middlebrook, 2017). Hate crimes are different from other forms of crimes since they can have far reaching impacts on the individual victims than other crimes (Middlebrook, 2017). In addition, hate crimes are different since they strike at the heart of one’s self-identity such as sense of belonging, hence leading to loss of dignity and even life. Unlike other crimes, victims of hate crimes are targeted just because of their characteristics, something called bias motivations. Finally, hate crimes may be invisible yet can impact on the community, family or friends of the victim sharing similar characteristics as the victim (Middlebrook, 2017)