Current and Future Trends in Public Safety Leadership

Public Safety Leadership Assessment

People are attracted to public safety as a career for a number of reasons, with an overarching desire to help others cited by many former and current public servants as being among the most important. In some cases, public safety leaders not only succeed in this goal, they do so in especially noteworthy ways that make them stand out as exemplars of public safety service. To determine the facts, this paper reviews the relevant literature to provide an analysis of leadership performance in the current public safety environment in order to compare and contrast effective and ineffective leadership. To this end, an evaluation of the performance of recognized public safety leaders in relation to leadership traits, roles, styles, and situations is followed by an appraisal of current and future leadership trends in public safety. Finally, effective and ineffective leadership in the public sector are compared and contrasted, followed by a summary of the research and important findings in the conclusion.

Evaluation of the performance of recognized public safety leaders in relation to leadership traits, roles, styles, and situations

While it is reasonable to suggest that the overwhelming majority of the nation's public safety leaders perform their official duties in ways that justify the public's faith and trust, there are some particularly noteworthy instances of the types of performances of recognized public safety leaders that make them stand out. Because they are on the front lines of defending the public from criminal elements in society, it is not surprising that many of these public safety leaders are law enforcement officials. Some salient example of these types of public safety leaders who have been recognized for their contributions include the recent recipient of the U.S. Medal of Valor (Garunay, 2016). The Medal of Valor is awarded to public safety officers who have demonstrated "exceptional courage, regardless of personal safety, in the attempt to save or protect others from harm" (Rosen, 2016).

According to the White House's press release of the award ceremony, the Medal of Valor was awarded to Major David Huff of the Midwest City, Oklahoma Police Department "for uncommon poise in resolving a dangerous hostage situation. Major Huff saved the life of a two-year-old girl after negotiations deteriorated with a man holding the child captive at knife point" (Garunay, 2016, para. 5). Likewise, another recipient, Sergeant Robert Wilson III of the Philadelphia Police Department was awarded the Medal of Valor "for giving his life to protect innocent civilians. Sergeant Wilson put himself in harm's way during an armed robbery, drawing fire from the assailants and suffering a mortal wound as he kept store employees and customers safe" (Garunay, 2016, para. 6).

The situations faced by these two public safety officials differed significantly in terms of the circumstances, but they also shared some common traits that help distinguish them as exemplary public safety leaders. In both situations, lives were at stake and the heroic actions taken by these law enforcement officials served to save these lives. This assertion is confirmed by the requirements for the Medal of Valor which include "showing exceptional courage in life-threatening situations" (Giaretti, 2016, p. 7). Moreover, even though Major Huff survived the encounter with the knife-wielding assailant, it is reasonable to suggest that he was prepared to sacrifice his life to save the 2-year-old victim just as Sergeant Wilson did for the store employees and customers who were endangered by gunmen. These extraordinary efforts are analogous to firefighters who actually run into blazing buildings in an effort to save lives when all of their natural instincts are telling them to run the other way.

Other traits that can be discerned from the Medal of Valor awards presented to these two public safety leaders include the selfless poise exhibited by Major Huff in his efforts to negotiate with a deranged assailant while holding a 2-year-old child hostage who was likely hysterical throughout the ordeal. Similarly, Sergeant Wilson placed the safety of innocent victims ahead of his own personal safety by knowingly and willingly sacrificing his own life in order to save them. The two foregoing examples are not to suggest, though, that only law enforcement officials are recognized public safety leaders, but it is to say that these individuals stand out because they epitomize exemplary public safety leadership in a nation that remains edgy in the post-September 11, 2001 where homegrown and international jihadists continue to represent a significant threat to public safety. These recent trends can also provide some insights concerning current and future leadership trends in public safety as discussed below.

Appraisal of current and future leadership trends in public safety

The foregoing awards for valor come at a time in American history when public safety leaders have come under increasing criticism for the manner in which they administer their responsibilities. These criticisms are due in large part to a number of high-profile instances of alleged brutality and racial discrimination by law enforcement authorities across the country, making these awards particularly important for helping the public understand the dangers faced by these officials in their day-to-day routines and the personal commitment that is required (Rosen, 2016).

There have been other recent criticisms directed at public safety officials that will likely have an effect on future leadership trends, including most especially the manner in which government organizations such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security achieve their respective goals (Bumgarner, 2008). Future efforts by these public safety organizations will likely focus more on educating the American public concerning viable ways to protect themselves during times of manmade and natural disasters, with a focus on improving compliance rates with evacuation orders and reducing dangerous behaviors such as remaining in a disaster zone despite repeated warnings (Bumgarner, 2008).

Effective and ineffective leadership compared and contrasted