Chief Davis Leadership Style

Prior to Chief Davis’ transition to the top executive position, the department worked towards maintaining the professional pattern of policing (Thacher, 2000b). In fact, the department’s leadership attempted to remove the majority of outside influences. Nevertheless, the department was proud of its training program, its professional appearance, and longevity in the community. But, eventually, the lack of input from city hall, community, and lack of willingness to transform with the times brought about the change in leadership. Chief Davis came into his role with a definite vision for the future and developed a plan to realize his objectives. Accordingly, Chief Davis’s plan for community policing was not merely talk, but he proved with his actions

Furthermore, Chief Davis realized that he needed to delegate authority to continue his vision to subordinate below him, which could also allow them to buy into the ideology. Likewise, he also realized the need to increase the number of officers, modify the department's image, and provide the resources the department required. Thus, Chief Davis style as a police executive is a statesman through vision, delegation, and a democratic form of leadership (Cordner, 2016). There is also an addition of the politician-style as well due to the use of community pressure to achieve his goals.

Much like Lowell Massachusetts’s Police Department, Riverside California’s Police Department considered themselves a professional leader in the field of law enforcement (Thacher, 2000a). However, there lack of connection with the community, and unwillingness to change with the time's frustrated new city management. The

Consequently, both individuals desired to implement community policing in their community, so both desired external input (Thacher, 2000a; Thacher, 2000b). Furthermore, both had the backing of their city government regarding the proposed changes, but that is where the similarities end. Chief Davis provided a vision for the officers in his new department to follow, whereas Chief Fortier hid his agenda. While Davis was able to gain community support and internal support for his proposed changes, Fortier battled his department in almost every change proposed. Chief Davis realized the need to provide his department goal for the proposed alterations, and the necessity to delegate authority if he was to achieve his goals. Additionally, he understood that real change is both in the department and community mindset; therefore, he spent considerable time grooming community support for the change. Meanwhile, Fortier kept his goal to himself and attempted an extensive change with little support from in the department or outside. Besides, it appears that he failed to delegate authority to those below his so that they could assist him in his objectives. The most significant contrast between the two is that Davis split his focus internally and externally, while Fortier focus was primarily internal. The above is my understanding of the executive styles and